Playing Hardball with Citibank…
I have been a loyal, long-time customer of Citibank for many years, always feeling safe when purchasing goods in brick-and-mortar stores or shopping online because Citibank has always been in my corner in the fight against fraud.
Until now.
When Day and Night Furnace Company refused to refund $4,100 paid by Citibank credit card account number XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX after I canceled a contract with them on July 18, 2005, I expected Citibank to fight in my corner as it always had done previously. I did not expect Citibank to ignore the voluminous record of facts that I presented, and to resolve the dispute by simply indicating that Day and Night is “unwilling to issue credit” and the “investigation is complete”. Of course Apollo Johnsen, the owner of Day & Night Furnace, is unwilling to issue credit! He is a con man! What incentive does he have to “willingly” issue credit when even the mighty Citibank won’t even lift a finger to protect its cardholders?
CitiBank has a legal and financial obligation to protect me from fraud, and in this case has failed to do so. As such, I am informing you, CitiBank, that the only way that you will collect the $4,050 (the original $4,100 charge minus a $50 convenience credit issued to me by Citibank) is to stand in my corner and fight with me, properly charging back Day and Night Furnace Company the entire amount. Your other choice is to eat the expense and chalk the refund up to customer relations expense for a cardholder that pays thousands of dollars each year in credit card interest — not to mention the more than $24,000 I pay in interest each year to CitiMortgage, a financial relative of CitiBank.
For now, let’s ignore the facts that the Better Business Bureau has publicly recognized the pattern of fraud by Day & Night Furnace, has issued its lowest rating of “unsatisfactory”, and states that Day and Night Furnace “has demonstrated practices that are misleading or deceptive” and “has failed to cooperate in efforts to resolve consumer disputes” — facts provided to Citibank during my appeal.
Let’s put aside the fact that Day & Night Furnace and its owner Apollo Johnsen has been featured by local television stations as someone who commits perpetual fraud and continues to bilk local citizens — a copy of the article was provided to Citibank as part of my plea.
Let’s shelve the fact that since I’ve posted my experiences with Day and Night Furnace Company online I’ve been contacted by four other individuals who had been legally robbed by Apollo Johnsen — the information was reported to and accessible by Citibank during the process of my case.
Let’s turn a deaf ear to the fact that at a minimum in my case alone Apollo Johnsen violated California Business and Professions Code sections 7159(c)(2), 7159(c)(3)(A), 7159(c)(3)(B)(ii), 7159(c)(4), 7159(c)(6), 7159(d), 7159(d)(3), 7159(d)(4), 7159(d)(7), 7159(d)(8)(A), 7159(d)(8)(C), 7159(d)(13), 7159(e)(1), 7159(e)(2), 7159(e)(3), 7159(e)(4), 7159(e)(5), 7159(e)(6)(A), and 7159.5(a)(3) — all and any of which make the “contract” between me and Day and Night Furnace Company void and unenforceable AND all of which had been reported to Citibank during my appeal to refund the money unjustly withheld. The full text of these code sections is available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode ?section=bpc &group=07001-08000 &file=7150-7168.
Let’s leave out of the calculation the fact that Apollo actually used materials I owned to perform some of the repairs — without my knowledge, permission, or consent!
Let’s turn a blind eye to the facts that Apollo openly sabotaged a vital piece of equipment, that his crew tried to mislead me by claiming that another customer’s rusted discards were mine, that Day and Night lied about the condition of the existing equipment during their inspection, and that the equipment installed by Day & Night does not function as well as the previously installed equipment — the details of which were provided to Citibank within my nine-page-long request for a refund.
Forget all that. The entire case boils down to these simple facts:
1. Apollo Johnsen completed the non-emergency repair job two days after the “contract” (an invalid and illegal one) was signed.
2. I erringly accepted and paid for the work in full that evening.
3. The next day I discovered the fraud, lies, violations, and poorly functioning and poorly installed equipment and deemed the work unacceptable, unprofessional, and fraudulent. (Six months later, at the time of the writing of this letter, the working condition of the equipment is still unacceptable.)
4. I notified Apollo by certified letter and fax on the third business day after the signing of the contract (and later by phone) that I cancelled the contract. I also reminded him of his lawful responsibility to refund the entire amount within 10 days, and I notified him that he had 20 days to pick up his materials as decreed in California Business and Professions Code section 7159(e)(6)(B) which reads as follows:
“You, the buyer, have the right to cancel this contract within three business days. You may cancel by e-mailing, mailing, faxing, or delivering a written notice to the contractor at the contractor’s place of business by midnight of the third business day after you received a signed and dated copy of the contract that includes this notice. Include your name, your address, and the date you received the signed copy of the contract and this notice.
If you cancel, the contractor must return to you anything you paid within 10 days of receiving the notice of cancellation. For your part, you must make available to the contractor at your residence, in substantially as good condition as you received it, any goods delivered to you under this contract or sale. Or, you may, if you wish, comply with the contractor’s instructions on how to return the goods at the contractor’s expense and risk. If you do make the goods available to the contractor and the contractor does not pick them up within 20 days of the date of your notice of cancellation, you may keep them without any further obligation. If you fail to make the goods available to the contractor, or if you agree to return the goods to the contractor and fail to do so, then you remain liable for performance of all obligations under the contract.”
Day and Night has elected not to pick up the goods delivered under the contract dated over six months ago and I therefore retain the rights to keep the goods without any financial obligation, as allowed by law.
CitiBank has a legal and financial obligation to protect me from fraud and has failed to do so — despite being in possession of every one of the facts above since the date of my original complaint. Would you rather lose an excellent, long-time, revenue-producing customer and get saddled with an unpaid balance of $4,050 — or would you rather retrieve illicit gains fraudulently obtained by a small-time crook?
Please let me know your decision as soon as possible. Thank you!
Very nice. The letter, of course. Not Citibank. Based on my experience with them (which is why I will no longer deal with Citi) they are far more likely to respond to something that will cost THEM money than to something that will cost YOU.
So this was a year ago…
…What was the end result?
Sadly, it’s still not resolved, although progress has been made. When it’s all over, I’ll post a conclusion.
Closing this old thread out. Please read the rest of the series and leave any comments you may have at the end. Thanks!