Consumer complaint received 2016-08-03
Product: Credit card — 
Issue: Billing disputes — 
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (MN)

Purchased merchandise on XXXX from XXXX in the amount of {$750.00}. Merchandise came damaged. I contacted XXXX on XXXX and XXXX ( to remind them ) and reported the damage and asked to be refunded. XXXX did not pick up the merchandise. I disputed the charge with Capital One on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Capital One reversed the charge on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The merchant sent a print out of the order showing the order number, purchase date, items and quantities purchased. They further sent a print off from XXXX showing the damaged merchandise delivered. And finally they sent a credit card transaction log showing the details of the charge being authorized and approved. The merchant provided no rebuttal or repsonse to why they did not pick up the damaged merchandise or if they even attempted to pick up the damaged merchandise. Nor did the merchant refute that I had contacted them stating the merchandise was damaged. 

On XXXX XXXX, XXXX Capital One writes me and stated that the merchant provided the above documentation thus they were rebilling my account {$750.00}. 

Capital One has violated Federal Law and owes me a penalty of {$1000.00}. 

My complaint pertains to the handling of my dispute under the XXXX, Truth in Lending, Regulation Z and applicable case law. The facts in this case are rather simple. I ordered merchandise. The merchandise came damaged. I contacted the merchant rejecting the merchandise by stating it is damaged and requesting the merchant to pick it up. The merchant agreed to pick it up and credit but did not. This same scenerio has been reviewed in the courts as far back as XXXX. Capital One knows this but is not following established law. 
In this case Capital One ignored the law and made me go beyond what was required by physcially sending back the merchandise. All while Capital One rebilled my account and demanded payment. A clear violation of Federal Law. 

See XXXX v. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Missouri Supreme Court applying Truth in Lending, Fair Credit Billing Acts and Regulation Z. 

XXXX XXXX argued that XXXX did not properly reject the ceiling fan because he did not return it. The court disagreed saying : " a buyer that rescinds the contract and holds the merchandise as bailee for the seller is not liable for the sale price. UCC Section 400.2-602 ( XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX. A buyer has no further obligations with regard to goods it has rejected. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX citing section 400.2-602 ( 2 ) ). The seller bears the cost of return delivery. '' This case is applying the Uniform Commercial Code of which is the same in all states. 

In my case I clearly told Capital One that I had rejected the damaged merchandise and that the seller was free to pick it up. At the time that I informed the merchant that the merchandise was damaged and I wanted it picked up I had no further obligation. The merchant did not respond my saying they attempted to pick up the merchandise or that I refused to allow them to pick up the merchandise. With this, Capital One placed the charge back on my account and demanded payment. 

This is a clear violation of law. Capital One owes me a penalty of {$1000.00}. XXXX XXXX v XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX.