At approximately XXXX EDT on Friday, XXXX XXXX 2015, I placed a call to Citigroup ( at telephone number XXXX - hereinafter the " XXXX number '' ) in regards to a closed account. I was instructed that the people available on that line were not able to help me, but that I should call another department within Citigroup at telephone number XXXX ( the " XXXX number '' ). 

At approximately XXXX EDT on that same day, I followed the recommendation of the Citigroup employee, and placed a telephone call to the XXXX number. When an unnamed representative answered this call, she answered the call as " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. '' As I had been led to believe that the XXXX number was another office within Citigroup, I was confused, and asked for clarification. 

After being assured that yes, I was in fact speaking with a representative of Citigroup, I proceeded to divulge personal details - including, but not limited to my name, address, and social security number ( or a portion thereof ). 

After divulging this information, I was informed that the telephone call to the XXXX number constituted an attempt to collect a debt, and that I was not, in fact, speaking with someone who had any connection to Citigroup. I was further told that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is in no way affiliated with Citigroup, even though this directly contradicted the information provided immediately earlier by agents and/or employees of both Citigroup and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

I believe that during the call to the XXXX number, an agent or employee of Citigroup did engage in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices, in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

I also believe that their actions may have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as follows:1. Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( e ), Paragraph 10 - " The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer ; '' 2. Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( e ), Paragraph 14 - " The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector 's business, company, or organization. 

The Citigroup employee either knew or should have known that the XXXX number was not, in fact, another department within Citigroup, and certainly should not have represented that it was. I believe that this unfair and deceptive act may have been sanctioned by Citigroup, pursuant to a forward flow agreement with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who periodically purchase defaulted consumer credit accounts from Citigroup.