Consumer complaint received 2019-05-23
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: CA
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: Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card

Complaint:
Capital One Visa Complaint ( Complaint will be made about Capital One and XXXX XXXX XXXX to the FCC, the Secretary of the State of California, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 

In XXXX of XXXX I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX to cancel services at my prior address at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX and initiate services for our new address at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX ( account number XXXX ). 
The XXXX XXXX XXXX order confirmation number given to me in XX/XX/XXXX for this action was : XXXX. 

I've attached verification from XXXX XXXX XXXX which notes this same account number stating that services at the existing ( old ) address were to be disconnected on XX/XX/XXXX. However, XXXX XXXX XXXX concurrently billed me for services at both my prior address and my current address until XXXX of XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX did not, and has not, remedied this theft. 

In XXXX of XXXX I had called XXXX XXXX XXXX  about what I believe are fraudulent credit card charges for XXXX XXXX ( The credit card bill stated " XXXX XXXX  '', and not " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' ). Several calls were made to XXXX XXXX XXXX and an employee there admitted to me that they did have an XXXX XXXX XXXX order to cut off services at the old address dated XX/XX/XXXX, but XXXX XXXX XXXX never acted on their own order to cut off services and kept charging my Capital One Credit Card for the services at the prior address. 
I then made several requests for XXXX XXXX XXXX to provide a full refund. Yet, my requests to XXXX XXXX XXXX have been ignored. I was told that an XXXX XXXX XXXX supervisor would call me back in XXXX of this year regarding this matter but no one from XXXX XXXX XXXX ever did call back. 

Due to XXXX XXXX XXXX failure to refund the money that they had received, I opened a case ( Case Number XXXX ) with Capital One requesting that all of the charges made for services that Id canceled in a timely manner, and had never used ( as I didnt own or live at the old address for this period of time ), be refunded in full. The total amounted to {$2400.00}. 

After providing a detailed accounting of the situation Capital One sent me a check for the full amount- only to later send me a letter dated XXXX that they were going to reapply the charges equaling the {$2400.00}. The " reason '' that they give is that Capital One only allows 60 days from the date of a statement to dispute a charge. I contend that this is not a " dispute '' but a fraudulent action on the part of Capital One because they refused to define their clients ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) actions as fraudulent and NOT a dispute. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX actions and inactions are also fraudulent. 

Specifically, Capital Ones and XXXX actions, and inactions, clearly constitute what is known as Constructive Fraud, Constructive fraud in California Constructive fraud comprises any act, omission or concealment involving a breach of legal ( such as Capital Ones failure to define XXXX XXXX XXXX actions as fraud ) or equitable duty ( such as XXXX XXXX XXXX failure to cancel a service ), trust or confidence which results in damage to another, even though the conduct is not otherwise fraudulent. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) 24 Cal.App.4th 555, 562 ; 2 XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( 2d ed. XXXX  ), 3:20, p. 120-121 ; Civ. Code 1573 ( 1 ). If a fiduciary relationship exists, any concealment of material fact is fraud. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) 219 Cal.App.3d 926, 937-938 ; XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) 67 Cal.App.3d 19, 32. 
Unlike actual fraud, constructive fraud does not require an intentional deception, an intent to deceive being implied from the failure to disclose. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) 12 Cal.2d 501, 525. Further, reasonable reliance is presumed upon a nondisclosure of the fiduciary, absent direct evidence of lack of reliance. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) 1 Cal.App.4th 582, 601. '' By narrowly, and I believe illegally, defining this instance as a dispute, Capital One has dramatically limited the charges considered recoverable from a credit card company ( 2 months versus 1 year ). Capital One/Visas shared definition of fraud, is at best, incomplete and needs to fully reflect all legal definitions of fraud. 

Also, allowing corporations to arbitrarily and capriciously define time periods for crimes like identity theft and fraud as anything less than the full seven year statute of limitations is unwise and highly questionable.

I had depended on Capital One to help protect myself from, what I will charitably describe as questionable business practices ; in this they have demonstrably failed. I am requesting that the FTC require that Capital One use the full legal definition ( s ) of Fraud and instruct them to refund all of the {$2400.00}. 

This only represents my direct loss, and does not include the time Ive spent on the phone, writing claims, researching legal remedies and writing complaints, which now totals well over 40 hours. 

Thank you for your consideration in this important matter. 

XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation