Product: Credit card

I called CapitalOne to file a dispute for a charge on my credit card on XX/XX/2023. 

The bank took on the dispute that same day ( XXXX XXXX : XXXX ) and requested additional information ( Attachment # XXXX ) to be submitted by XX/XX/2023. 

I made a detailed evidence submission ( Attachment # XXXX ) as per what they requested on XX/XX/2023 only receive an automated reply on XX/XX/XXXX ( Attachment # XXXX ) stating that my submission 'lacks all of the previously requested information needed to validate your dispute '. 

Over the next couple of weeks I called CapitalOne a number of times asking for clarification on what was exactly was missing from my submission. I was persistent because I knew that I had submitted everything they asked for to continue the dispute. I did not get a clear answer as to what exactly was missing until XX/XX/XXXX when the agent I was speaking with at the time stated that the reason my case was closed was because the receipt I submitted for the dispute was not in XXXX. 

The credit card in question is an international credit card, which I have held for over 10 years - and on which I have sucessfully disputed charges, which were not necesssarily made in the United States by submitting receipts which were not necessarily in XXXX. Thus, in my view, the reason for the premature closure of my dispute was not valid as this had never ever come up before. 

I proceeded to point out to the agent that although the receipt my not be entirely in XXXX, it was written in XXXX script ( i.e. it's not like it was in XXXX! ) and thus one could very easily and readily identify the merchant name, the date and time of the transaction and the total amount charged- I had even submitted screenshots of my credit card statement, which showed the same merchant name on both the statement and the receipt. The agent promptly agreed with that my case should not have been dismissed, and that the person evaluating my submission should have taken a closer look at the receipt in order to match it to the transaction in question, thereby allowing for the dispute to more the next stage consisting of the bank getting in touch with the merchant. 

At this point, I was instructed by the agent to make a XXXX submission, which was essentially a letter asking re-evaluate the first submission in order to reopen the case. He said making this XXXX submission was a formality, but at the same time a necessary step in order to effectivley reopen the case. Thus I promptly made the XXXX submission requested of me that very same day ( Attachment # XXXX ) on XX/XX/2023. 

A few days later, on XX/XX/2023, I received an automated reponse form the bank, which stated that the timeframe ( apparently of 60 days following disputed transaction ) for revering the charge had expired and so the bank was dismissing the dispute yet again ( Attachment # XXXX ). 

This was quite funny ( and by that I mean infuriating ) to receive because the date on which the bank agreed to take on the dispute ( XX/XX/2023 ) was already closer to 90 days past the transcation. Thus, it doesn't make sense that the purported deadline ( never mentioned until then ) was somehow not a problem at the start - but suddenly a problem at that point. 

I received this letter while on holiday, so after I came back I called CapitalOne on XX/XX/XXXX. At that point, the agent I was speaking with entirely disregarded the letter from XX/XX/XXXX and simply stated that by their policies they had only a month ( 30 days ) from XX/XX/2023 ( the day I initiatied the dispute ) to act on my behalf and that this had now passed- so their hands were tied. 

This month-long period was a completely new deadline, which was not only different than the one from the XX/XX/XXXX letter, but also never communicated to me before in any of my conversations with CapitalOne agents. Moreover, the agent who advised me to make a XXXX submission on XX/XX/XXXX in order to reopen the case never mentioned it- please keep in mind, that the conversation I was having with him was already happening basically XXXX weeks AFTER the apparent window of 30 days following the initial dispute opening ( i.e. I was being instructed on how to reopen an prematurely closed case on XX/XX/XXXX .... while the window for them to act apparently ended on XX/XX/XXXX - or so I was told on XX/XX/XXXX ). 

Thus it became extremely confusing and inconsistent from a customer point of view. Whether it was intentional or not, I can not say. However, what I can state is that it is neither transparent nor fair for a consumer to be put through pointless jumps and hooops. Furthermore, I can state that CapitalOne not only prematurely closed, but also unnecessarily stalled the disputing of this charge in order to effectivley expire the window of possibility to effectively dispute the charge. This stalling was achieved by : ( 1 ) not communicating deadlines I need to be aware of ( 2 ) not reviewing my initial submission thoroughly ( 3 ) not providing clear communication on what they thought was missing from my initial submission, thereby forcing me to repeadly call and ask what else I need to submit in order to continue the dispute process ( 4 ) asking me to make a 2nd submission as a pre-requisite for reopening the case after they had closed it prematurley in error ( which of course led to a further delays and time lost on my part ) ( 5 ) communicating conflicting deadlines at different times in the process in order to mislead the customer, while substantiating the bank 's arguments In conclustion, I followed all stated processses and requirements asked of me, but this did not lead to the expected progress of the dispute. Moreover, the last two agents I spoke with ( on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) effectivley confirmed that there was an issue with the handling of my case ( i.e. it was prematurely closed when it should have been pursured ). While trying to presuade me to drop the dispute they skillfully came short of attributing fault to the bank or its employees and did not offer anything to remedy the situation after acknowledging the midshandlement of the case. As a result, I feel I have been misled and treated unfairly. 

Finally, if the XX/XX/XXXX response from the bank ( Attachment # XXXX ) had clearly communicated the specifics of the issue with my initial evidence submission ( i.e. the reading of the receipt proved difficult due to it not being entirely in XXXX ), then I would have made the XXXX clarifying submission much sooner and definitely before XX/XX/XXXX, which is the XXXX deadline the last agent I spoke with communicated to me as the final cut-off for proceeding with the dispute. Instead the XX/XX/XXXX letter basically said that they didn't receive what they asked for. And with that vague wording, I was essentially set up to fail in progressing this dispute on time.