Product: Credit card or prepaid card

Dear CFPB : I have been an excellent credit card patron, paying my card balance regularly and reliably. I have an ongoing with Capital One. On XX/XX/XXXX, I requested by telephone, that my credit card account be closed. Subsequently, the same week, I sent written notice to Capital One to close my account. I asked that my credit report reflect that the account was " closed at the consumer 's request. '' I also requested written confirmation of the account 's closure. I indicated in writing that I was closing the account due to the fact that it was disputed and frauds were perpetrated upon me by two separate merchants almost simultaneously. One dispute was with XXXX  Member XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ; the second dispute was with XXXX XXXX. I have had credits cards for ages and I never had two ( 2 ) issues simultaneously or even filed an official dispute to any extent. Airbnb Member XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : A filed dispute with XXXX XXXX through XXXX was supported by written evidence by this writer to show that the said merchant failed to supply the accommodation that was pictured in his XXXX posting and additionally he supplied a rental unit that was not only substandard, but very dangerous. This writer did not utilize the accommodation to the extent paid for, had to stay with others ( friends in XXXX ), and communicated both complete dissatisfaction and request for refund overtly to the merchant. Merchant perpetrated a fraud on me ( the consumer ) and my card company accepted the charge as valid. IT WAS FRAUD. I have a private attorney who advised me to lodge complaints with CFPB and that he will litigate this matter for me if it is not resolved. XXXX XXXX : A filed dispute with XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX was supported by written evidence by this writer to show that the said merchant indiscriminately charged a significantly higher rate to this passenger while supplying most passengers an extremely reduced rate for the same stateroom type. A change in advertised ports-of-call ( after booking ) due to a severe propulsion issue on the ship caused XXXX to offer passengers drastically reduced rates of {$190.00} if they cancelled their booking and then rebooked. While passengers who were loyal to XXXX and did not cancel after the notification of the port change, paid the full price of {$6200.00}. This writer only learned of the discriminatory practices after being on board the ship at sea. This writer made XXXX aware of the fact that the charge was not authorized ( rejected ) while on board the ship at the Purser 's desk and by completing a ship-to-shore telephone call to dispute the charge, which constructively constitutes " leaving the ship '' since it is impossible actually to leave the ship while it was at sea. This writer contacted the Purser 's desk and engaged in an extensive ship-to-shore telephone conversation with the travel agent to dispute and to " unauthorize '' this charge. The fact that XXXX offered a drastically reduced rate to passengers similarly situated in stateroom types equal to that of this writer, creates a unfair and discriminatory charge, unjustly enriching travelers with similar stateroom types who paid only {$190.00} while negatively disadvantaging this writer. A senior Advisor at Capital One indicated that this writer supplied more than enough evidence to support reversing this charge, however the fact that this writer " remained on board the ship '' would " negate the refund. '' Clearly, the fact that this writer attempted to " unauthorize '' the charge by contacting the Purser 's Desk after learning ( while on the ship ) of the newly discovered evidence of the vast adjustments in price that were made to other travelers similarly situated supports that XXXX effected a fraud and misrepresentation in the inducement upon this writer. Capital One failed to properly adjudicate these two ( 2 ) separate disputes in my favor after both merchants were proven by submission of VOLUMINOUS documented and incontrovertible evidence to have fraudulently, discriminatorily, and improperly charged my card. *Under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure ( CARD ) Act, this Capital One ( or any credit card ) company can not compel payment of the outstanding disputed balance. If Capital One elects to report this matter to any credit bureau, legally, Capital One will be required to notate the fact that this balance is an amount that its customer/cardholder does not believe they owe. Disputes and Unauthorized Charges under : Federal law 15 U.S.C. 1643 limits a cardholders liability to a maximum of {$50.00} for unauthorized charges. That being said, under the statute, and according to the Fair Credit Billing Act, the customer/cardholder is protected against charges for goods and services that have not been delivered as agreed upon. The law provides that the customer/cardholder may withhold payment of any balance due on goods/services purchased with a credit card, provided he/she has made a good faith effort to return resolve the problem with the merchant. Final and full payment of my actual balance owed was included and paid to Capital One in XXXX of XXXX. I noted it was a final payment and they cashed the check knowing that I was not paying the disputed amount - because the charges that remained were fraudulent, unauthorized, and/or facilitated under false pretenses by the merchant. 

To date, despite my efforts to have Capital One thoroughly review both matters - using ALL documentation that I have provided that demonstrates the frauds perpetrated in these matters, Capital One insists that the matter has been reviewed simply because the merchants have responded to the initial charge back letters with a contrary position. Capital One accepted those merchant positions without properly assessing the validity of the documentation that I provided. It appears to be a situation of unclean hands in the determination that the charges are valid, since Capital One benefits from upholding the charges as valid despite the evidence to the contrary. Consequently, my credit and my honorable record of payment is irreparably damaged. Capital One insists that amount in question be termed " a balance due or owing. '' It is NOT. The balance was fully paid. The amount remaining is a fraudulently ratified amount in direct contravention of the User Agreement. Further, Capital One has the ability to adjust the balance in accordance with Visa policy. There is no balance due and the legal position as stated is that the respective charges ( as set forth in previously submitted and also retained documents ) were made under false pretenses, misrepresentation, and fraud. All of the circumstances mandate a charge back to the merchant.