I had to travel for work over a 10 day period. The first leg of the trip was to XXXX  from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX.  The second half of the Trip was to XXXX XXXX  onXX/XX/XXXX for engagements at XXXX conferences in the area returning to XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX.

All required reservations were made months in advance through XXXX  and XXXX  utilizing the account in question. The first leg of the trip had no issues. On the last day in XXXX, we spent time at the Capital One Cafe, having a fairly good coffee with the account in question, and spoke with the representatives whom looked into our account to make sure everything was properly set for the trip. I was told this also included the fact that we were traveling at the time, but was informed today XX/XX/XXXX that no note about the travel was ever made.

We left XXXX and took a ride share to the airport, made purchases at the airport, checked in our bags, boarded the plane, and got another car in the early morning from the XXXX XXXX airport to the hotel downtown ( after a layover in XXXX ). All purchases were made using the account in question and showed a clear path of travel from the previous destination to the new destination. Such a path should be analyzed by systems determining account suspicion.

Upon arriving at the hotel in downtown XXXX XXXX  after XXXX   local time, our card was declined when attempting to check in. The balance was well and above the charges which signaled the card was flagged for suspicious activity during travel. This was confirmed the next day with a Capital One representative and was a direct paradox to what we had been told would occur in XXXX. I called Capital One customer service only to be shocked that they do not have anyone on staff or any system in place to actually verify a transaction after business hours. There credit card division had staff but is not able to work with debit cards and verify those transactions to release a card.

We keep all our money with Capital One, a decision I am learning is not an intelligent strategy. Thus the hotel was unable to pre-authorize the card and we were unable to check in meaning we had to simply wait in the dark in downtown XXXX XXXX  with our luggage until Capital One offices finally opened so that someone could be reached by phone, which is dangerous inherently.

We also lost our hotel reservation for the week since we were unable to check in. XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX happened to have 6 major conferences going on in the city and all hotels were either completely filled or charging upwards of 5 times the rate of when we booked months before. The hotel of our original reservation was completely booked and we were forced to pay to stay in the one across the street for $ 700+ a night because of the limited availability ( a room normally priced at $ XXXX/night ) after a long night outside waiting on offices to open.

The original stay for 4 nights ( XX/XX/XXXXthrough theXX/XX/XXXX ) was {$1100.00} ( excluding tax and fees ) or {$270.00} per night. The final cost following the loss of reservation and re-booking was {$2200.00} for 3 nights ( first spent outside ) or {$730.00} per night.

I spoke to Capital One on multiple occasions throughout the week asking for a resolutions. After review Capital One determined that their terms of service give them the right to suspend a card for suspicious activity at any time for security purposes, a point that was not under question.

I completely agree and am thankful for a bank ensuring transactions are valid and as was explained to Capital One that is not the source of my complaint. My complaint revolves around the understanding that when a bank or its systems are the sole cause and trigger for the flagging/suspension of access to consumer funds, there should be an immediate or near immediate method of resolution to verify the transaction and allow the customer to access their funds so that dangerous situations like the above do not occur.

Capital One alleges they sent an email for verification which I did receive almost 3 hours later ( time was also confirmed by representative on recorded line ), however at that time the reservations had already been lost and the financial damage already onset. If a bank intends to enact their ability to suspend access to funds, they should also be held to a reasonable expectation of resolution of the matter within a few minutes or tens of minutes. The suspension system is automated, the resolution email was automated, and thus the time differential is really unacceptable.

As the head of a technology department myself, I understand this is a very reasonable expectation. If there are challenges preventing this from occurring, the bank should at least provide a system to be able to verify those transactions and garner access to funds upon the customers request.

Citing a provision from a page in the terms and conditions hidden in a scroll box from 5 years ago is not an excuse for being held accountable to resolving the decision to enact that provision.