Consumer complaint received 2019-09-21
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: IL
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement

Complaint:
My car began overheating so I had it towed to a mechanic that was recommended by a oil change company which happened to be fairly close to where my car began overheating. After a number of days of inspecting and diagnosing the problem I was contacted and told that there was a leak in the water distribution assembly and needed to have the gaskets replaced. The repair would be roughly {$600.00}. I agreed to have the repairs completed ; I received a call a few days later and was told the repairs were made however, there was a piece of the radiator that broke off and now the radiator needed to be replaced. They expressed that they only use genuine XXXX parts and the total cost of the original repair and the additional repair was roughly {$1500.00}. In addition, I was charged for repairs on the invoice that were clearly listed on the same invoice as deferred services. Once I picked up the car, I noticed that the check engine lights came on again and took the car back to the mechanic. They said the codes were the same from the original repair and must not have been cleared, so they cleared them and sent me on my way. A few days later, the check engine light came on again. I called the mechanic and was told that it would be 3-4 days before they would be able to look at the car again, fear of the car overheating again, I took the car to XXXX, the manufacturer. I requested a complete inspection and diagnostics, and was told that the radiator needed to be replaced and that its impossible for a genuine XXXX radiator to bust at the seams and leak antifreeze in less than year of usage, certainly not within 1 month. I paid for the repairs through XXXX and disputed the transaction from the previous mechanic because they did not perform the service as requested and agreed upon as well as charging for additional services that were declined. 

Upon disputing the transaction, the dispute was first declined without requesting any information whatsoever from me, the customer of Capital One and the person filing the dispute. Within that same document denying my dispute, Capital One said if I wanted to continue this dispute I should send a signed and dated letter along with documentation proving that the work was not completed as agreed. 

I addressed and provided details, video from the XXXX technician showing the radiator which was replaced by the first mechanic, leaking antifreeze at multiple points on the seams of the radiator. The new radiator which was described by the first mechanic as a genuine XXXX part, is leaking within 30 days of installation. The XXXX mechanic also concluded that this could not be a genuine XXXX radiator that was installed. I also provided the inspection report from XXXX stating that the radiator needed to be replaced, invoice of the radiator replacement, completed by XXXX and paid by me ; a timeline and additional notes of what occurred. The invoice/inspection document from XXXX, is clearly provided on a XXXX inspection document. These documents also have the company 's pre-printed letterhead listing the name and address of XXXX. Also, based on the document provided by Capitalone, It was to conduct an investigation and to allow 10 days for the investigation to be completed. Capital One noted that they received my documentation On XX/XX/2019, and the document it provided telling me my dispute was closed, was also dated for XX/XX/2019. Highly unlikely that any investigation was conducted. Especially since certain information proving breach of contract is listed on the second page of the agreement ; the merchant also did not provide all pages of the contract, nor did I receive it. Furthermore, Capital one is supposed to be submitting this dispute to Mastercard on my behalf ; however it doesn't appear that they are or want to. Nor are they concerned about protecting its senior customers from unethical merchants making charging its customers for work not completed and parts not provided and using the Mastercard as a vehicle to do so.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief