Consumer complaint received 2026-03-31 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
b'On XXXX XXXX XXXX I submitted a written Billing Error Notice to\nCapital One pursuant to the Fair Credit Billing Act ("FCBA"),\n15 U.S.C. 1666, and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026.13. The\nnotice was sent via USPS Priority Mail with Delivery Confirmation\n(TrackingXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The notice disputed the\nfull New Balance of XXXX on my XXXX XXXX XXXX statement,\nincluding: (1) a Past Due Fee of XXXX (2) an Interest Charge\nof XXXX as a computational error under 15 U.S.C. 1666(b)(5);\n(3) the Previous Balance of XXXX with itemization requested;\nand (4) the derivative New Balance of XXXX\n\nThe notice also raised a specific question under U.C.C. 1-201(b)(10)\nand 12 C.F.R. 1026.5(a)(1) regarding Capital One\'s application of\nbold, capitalized formatting to the payment warnings on the statement\nwhile presenting the underlying interest obligation the formula that\ngenerates the disputed charge in standard body text. I requested\nclarification as to which party each provision is intended to operate\nagainst, and the basis for the formatting distinction.\n\nCapital One responded on XXXX XXXX XXXX with three letters under\nCase Number XXXX Those responses:\n\n 1. DEFICIENT PHONE DEFLECTION:\n One letter contained a single operative sentence directing me\n to call Capital One at XXXX 12 C.F.R. 1026.13(c)(2)\n requires a written investigation and written explanation. A\n telephone number is not a written investigation result. This\n response does not satisfy Capital One\'s statutory obligation.\n\n 2. DEFICIENT NON-COMPLIANT INVESTIGATION RESPONSE:\n One letter stated Capital One was "unable to waive the finance\n charges" and directed me to the back of my statement to review\n the interest calculation formula. My dispute was not a waiver\n request. It was a computational error dispute under 15 U.S.C.\n 1666(b)(5), requesting verification of specific arithmetic.\n Capital One produced zero computations, zero documentary\n evidence, and zero written explanation of the specific figures\n disputed. Pointing to the same formula the consumer already\n cited is not a FCBA-compliant investigation response.\n\n 3. NON-RESPONSE BOLD AND CONSPICUOUS QUESTION:\n Not one of Capital One\'s three letters addresses the formatting\n question raised in my original notice. Capital One has not\n identified which party each provision in its agreement is\n intended to operate against, has not explained the basis for\n its selective application of conspicuous formatting, and has\n not defended its disclosures under 12 C.F.R. 1026.5(a)(1).\n This question was raised in writing on XXXX XXXX XXXX It\n remains unanswered as of the date of this complaint.\n\n 4. PARTIAL XXXX FEE CREDITED:\n Capital One credited the XXXX Past Due Fee. This portion\n of the dispute is resolved.\n\nVIOLATIONS\n\n Violation 1 12 C.F.R. 1026.13(c)(2):\n Failure to provide a written investigation result and written\n explanation supported by documentary evidence within two billing\n cycles. Capital One\'s responses substitute a telephone referral\n and a page reference for the written determination the statute\n requires.\n\n Violation 2 12 C.F.R. 1026.13(c)(2):\n Failure to produce the specific computational verification\n requested the daily periodic rate, Average Daily Balance\n calculation, and arithmetic used to arrive at the disputed\n Interest Charge of XXXX constitutes a failure to investigate\n a computational error dispute under 15 U.S.C. 1666(b)(5).\n\n Violation 3 12 C.F.R. 1026.5(a)(1) / Regulation Z:\n Capital One\'s agreement and billing statement apply bold,\n conspicuous formatting selectively to warnings about the\n consequences of obligations while presenting the underlying\n obligations themselves in standard body text. Capital One has\n not responded to the question of which party each provision\n operates against, has not defended the formatting distinction\n under U.C.C. 1-201(b)(10), and has not demonstrated that its\n disclosures meet the clear and conspicuous standard required by\n Regulation Z. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously\n held that Capital One\'s disclosures were not clear and conspicuous\n under TILA. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The same formatting vulnerability is present here.'

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation