Consumer complaint received 2019-08-17
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (CT)

I am forced to issue this complaint about Capital One as a matter of course due to their unwillingness to validly explain their case, and their continued and seeming willful obfuscations and continued emphasis on insisting that all their corporate actions are upstanding.  This is a valid dispute, despite Capital One’s intimations to the contrary, on account of Capital One furnishing derogatory data damaging my credit and using the unconscionable tactic of pushing through some judgment, getting a clerk to sign off on it that shows up on my public record.  Capital One, it seems, has chosen to ignore about half of my points in my last dispute.  I’m assuming because they can’t answer those and haven’t been able to in the last two months they’ve had to answer them?  Consumer protection laws were put into place to protect the consumer from the abusive practices that entities like Capital One and their agents are known to engage in and have a lengthy history of engaging in. Furthermore, It is not my responsibility to verify my data with Capital One in order to obtain the same hearsay documents (loan agreement without the terms of a contract, copies of bills of half the years the account was allegedly in existence).  It is not my responsibility to verify this, it is Capital One’s responsibility to verify their accuracy when they are furnishing derogatory data and claiming to have a judgment. If, as Capital One states, they are not obligated to provide affidavits attesting to the accuracy of all the documents they sent in their last answer regarding their business records, then all they forwarded was hearsay documentation, regarding those two 200+ page PDF files with the bills from XXXX on. This is not a customer service complaint about a XXXX fee, or some other minor matter, this, and my prior complaints are complaints to the CFPB about Capital One’s egregious violations of the Unfair Deceptive Abusive Or Acts Or Practices (UDAAP).  Yet they continue to “verify” the veracity of the data they furnish. Since Capital One states in their response to me that they don’t have to provide affidavits about attempts to “void a lawful debt you owe Capital One”, I will use the definition of the word, “verify” in its legal sense.  As per XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Verification is “Confirmation of correctness, truth or authenticity by affidavit, oath or deposition.” By continuing to verify data and willfully refusing to work within the parameters of “lawful”, as Capital One phrases it, they are engaging in a fraudulent misrepresentation of the circumstance, a violation of the UDAAP. In my last complaint I referred to the court’s refusal to acknowledge my interrogatories of the facts of the judgment they allegedly entered against me.  Sending a generic form showing the verdict doesn’t show the standing of the case. It doesn’t show how this court fulfilled the NYS civil procedure, in particular 3215 (f), particularly upon Capital One’s states refusal in their response that they have no need to submit affidavits. The court’s refusal to respond to my certified letters and Capital One’s continued forwarding of this statement that there was a judgment and lack of explanation as to how this clerk who signed off on this judgment didn’t commit a fraud on the court by not attesting to following the elements of state law in this matter. Capital One states in response to my last complaint that XXXX XXXX XXXX “followed all applicable laws and regulations in the handling of your account.”  Well, I wasn’t quite expecting them to say they don’t follow those laws.  Given their past track record, which I documented in my last dispute, their statement of following laws and regulations doesn’t hold much weight.  I don’t need to communicated with XXXX XXXX XXXX.  I have not entered into a contract with them nor have I consented into any agreement with them of any sort and have no interest in any business dealing with them, nor want them in possession of my personal identifying information, and as they are not furnishing derogatory data to the bureaus they are not my concern.  They are merely agents of Capital One’s in this matter and it is Capital One that I am filing this complaint about.  Also, as per the attached Affidavit of Service I closed in the response, the process server attests to having communicated with a “Mr. XXXX”, who allegedly was qualified to speak on whether I was a member of the military or not.  The due diligence here wasn’t due diligence enough as there is no Mr. XXXX   qualified to speak on my status in any way, shape or form. That affidavit should be voided on account of perjury.  Capital One, in their response, and despite their claim that Capital One follows all laws and regulations, still has not addressed the point I raised in my last complaint that they violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by never having notified me in the first place that they were placing derogatory data about me to the bureaus. My “request” for Capital One to cease furnishing derogatory information about me and their continued act of  “verifying” said information without having establish a basis for verification in its legal definition, established by Capital One’s stated and willing refusal to submit any affidavits attesting to the accuracy of this data, is not a request.  It is a demand, as Capital One continues to willfully contravene their own statement that they follow all laws and regulations.  Furthermore, as I have no accounts with Capital One, I demand they remove all of the data they have in their possession on me.  On account of the recent data breach of over 100 million customers, it is apparent that Capital One cannot guarantee and certainly appears to be incapable of guaranteeing the security and privacy of any information they possess.  Their transgressions towards the consumer that I have documented here and in my prior complaints, combined with their disregard for safeguarding customer data make it clear that this is a company that consumer protection laws were created to safeguard the consumer against!