I have a The Home Depot Card credit account with Citi. In the last 12 months or more, I 've had at least XXXX or more promotional 0 % financing deals expire, costing me $ $ in interest, even though I 've paid Citi more than enough money to completely pay off the promotional amount. The C.A.R.D. act allows them to do this because the lender is allowed to apply minimum payments how ever they see fit until the last 60 days before promotional expiration. It would be better for the consumer if the consumer could simply instruct the lender how to apply the FULL payment, instead of just what is in excess of the minimum payment. What is the significance of the minimum payment being included in the law anyway? And lastly, my statements sometimes CLEARLY show how my payment is applied. Other times, my statements actually do NOT clearly show how my payment is applied. For example : sometimes the statement shows that my full payment ( minimum amount, plus any excess payment ) is applied to my current interest bearing balance, and nothing is applied to my promotional balance. But SOMETIMES, my statement does not show the allocation of my payment. Instead, my balance simply goes down some. But I have to do the math myself ( add payments and credits back to my current balance, then subtract any new purchases or interest charges, and then compare that amount to my current balance on last month 's statement ), to see how my balance is effected by my payment. I though that the C.A.R.D rules were supposed to protect users from statement confusion & hidden charges. I believe that clearly showing how all payments are applied on each and every statement would be a pretty obvious way to avoid confusion. Lastly, the personnel at Citi were happy to tell me how they controlled my payment allocation in most situations. XXXX interrupted me, raising their voices, repeating explanations, or worse, explaining that they had already explained. XXXX stated that he works in the Tennessee service center for Citi. I assume that XXXX does, as well. I could actually HEAR the smile in their voices, but XXXX went so far as to giggle. If they record calls, and the company wants to know how NOT to treat clients, they should review the call. 
