Product: Credit card

On XX/XX/2024, I disputed a {$1200.00} charge from XXXX on my Capital One credit card account ( Dispute Case Number : XXXX ). This dispute arose from the delivery of damaged and defective items, a fact I promptly reported to XXXX. Despite my repeated attempts to resolve the issue, XXXX refused to facilitate a return, provide replacements, or issue a refund, in direct violation of its obligations under applicable consumer protection laws. 

On XX/XX/2024, Capital One rebilled the {$1200.00} charge to my account, citing the merchants claim that the goods were delivered in good condition. However, Capital One provided no documentation or evidence to substantiate this determination. Instead, Capital One summarily dismissed my assertions regarding the merchants failure to fulfill its obligations. 

On XX/XX/2024, I submitted a formal request via a personalized document upload link provided by Capital One. In my letter, I requested that Capital One produce all evidence related to this dispute, including internal notes, communications with the merchant, and any documentation supporting its decision to rebill the charge. I specifically requested this information be made available through my online account portal message center/documents, and Capital One agreed to this arrangement. 

Instead of fulfilling this request, Capital One mailed me a tiny, blurry, and illegible printout of what appeared to be the merchants response. This inadequate response contained deceptive assertions and unfounded claims, but no substantive evidence supporting Capital Ones decision to rebill the charge. It also failed to address the significant concerns I raised regarding the validity of the charge. 

On XX/XX/2024, I submitted a detailed rebuttal letter via fax, outlining Capital Ones deficiencies in handling this dispute. I reiterated that XXXX had misrepresented the condition of the goods and misstated critical facts. I also emphasized Capital Ones failure to conduct a good-faith investigation, as required under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ). To date, Capital One has neither responded to this rebuttal nor reopened the dispute. 

On XX/XX/2024, I submitted new evidence to Capital One, including email correspondence from a XXXX representative, XXXX XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/2024. This correspondence revealed the following : XXXX. XXXX explicitly admitted that the goods were damaged, consistent with my original dispute. 

XXXX. XXXX offered to replace the items free of charge but improperly conditioned this remedy on payment of an alleged outstanding balance. 

XXXX. XXXX falsely claimed that an outstanding balance existed, even though the {$1200.00} charge had already been rebilled to my account by Capital One on XX/XX/2024. This baseless assertion appeared to be an attempt to avoid fulfilling its obligations to replace or refund the defective goods. 

This evidence directly contradicted the merchants original representations to Capital One that the goods were delivered in good condition. It also exposed XXXX bad-faith conduct in fabricating a baseless claim of an outstanding balance to justify its refusal to resolve the issue. 

Capital Ones handling of this dispute has been grossly inadequate and appears to violate its obligations under federal law. Specifically : XXXX. Capital One failed to conduct a good-faith investigation into the charge, as mandated by the Fair Credit Billing Act. 

XXXX. Capital One failed to provide the requested documentation on XX/XX/2024, that would substantiate its decision to rebill the charge. 

XXXX. Capital One ignored my detailed rebuttal submitted on XX/XX/2024, neglecting to acknowledge or investigate the serious concerns I raised. 

Moreover, Capital One has taken no action regarding the new evidence I provided on XX/XX/2024, which further undermines the merchants credibility and justifications, calls into question Capital Ones determination to rebill the charge, and substantiates its failure to conduct a proper investigation. 

As a result of Capital Ones inadequate handling of this matter, I have suffered substantial financial harm and emotional distress. The defective items had to be discarded, as they were unsafe and unfit for use. Meanwhile, I remain unjustly burdened with the {$1200.00} charge.