Consumer complaint received 2026-05-22 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:
Formal Complaint : Capital One XXXX Date of Incident : XX/XX/year> Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Reservation Total : {$1400.00} Total Amount Refunded : {$530.00} Cash + {$120.00} Travel Credit + XXXX Miles Additional Credit Offered ( Partial Only ) : {$200.00} Travel Credit ( accepted as partial, not final resolution ) Remaining Amount in Dispute : {$530.00} Cash Statement of Facts : On XX/XX/year>, I booked a travel reservation through the Capital One XXXX portal ( XXXX XXXX ) using the Capital One website. The total cost was {$1400.00}, paid via a combination of cash, {$250.00} in travel credits, and XXXX miles. On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX EST, I accessed the Capital One website to explore options for changing the reservation dates. While reviewing the cancellation policy, I saw that canceling after XX/XX/XXXX would result in only a 50 % refund. Based on this information, I made a clear decision not to cancel the reservation and exited the process without confirming any cancellation. No clear confirmation screen was presented indicating that my reservation was canceled - leading to an unauthorized cancellation. Attempts to Resolve : Within approximately 5 minutes of exiting the website, I contacted Capital One by phone to ask if a date change for my reservation would be possible, as there was no option on their website. At no point prior to this call was I aware that the reservation had been canceled. During the call, a supervisor ( XXXX ) informed me that the reservation had already been canceled and that I would receive only a 50 % refund. This was the first time I became aware that the reservation had been terminated. I clearly explained that I never canceled the booking and requested that it be reinstated. Given the immediate timing, reinstatement should have been possible. However, I was told that reinstatement was not an option and was instead directed by XXXX to contact the host company ( XXXX XXXX ) to see if I could get a full refund. I subsequently contacted the host company and spoke with a representative named XXXX. He explained that XXXX XXXX does not receive the booking funds until later, which meant they were not yet in possession of the money at the time of my refund request. XXXX further stated that they would have been willing to approve a full refund if the request was made more than two weeks before the stay, but that Capital Ones fee structure effectively prevented them from doing so. Specifically, he explained that if XXXX XXXX approved the refund, Capital One would impose the cancellation fee on the host instead, which created a financial penalty for helping me. This put pressure on the host to deny the request, despite their apparent willingness to accommodate it. When I later spoke with Capital One, I was told that XXXX XXXX was the party keeping the money and that the refund outcome was solely the hosts decision. That explanation directly conflicted with what XXXX had told me. Based on my conversation with XXXX, Capital Ones policies and fee structurenot the hosts independent choiceappeared to be the real reason the refund was denied. This creates a misleading situation in which responsibility is shifted to the host while Capital Ones policies effectively control the outcome. After XXXX called us back and told us he spoke with XXXX, he claimed nothing could be done and insisted the refund was solely at the host companys ( XXXX XXXX ) discretion. When it became clear he would provide no solution to this system error, XXXX hung up on us. At approximately XXXX XXXX EST, I contacted Capital One again and spoke with another supervisor, XXXX. During this call, I was told that changes were not allowed under Capital One policy. XXXX offered a {$200.00} travel credit as a resolution. I accepted this amount only as a partial credit, not as a final resolution, as it does not come close to covering the total loss. In total, I spent approximately more than 3 hours attempting to resolve this issue between Capital One and the host company, without a meaningful resolution. Basis for Complaint : Unauthorized Transaction : The reservation was canceled without my intent or informed consent. I did not knowingly authorize this action, and no clear confirmation or warning was provided through the website. Misleading and Deceptive Practices : Capital One represented that the refund decision was solely at the hosts discretion, while simultaneously imposing financial penalties on the host for approving refunds. This creates a misleading and unfair dynamic. Unfair Business Practices/ Coercive Fee Structure : Capital Ones policies appear to pressure or discourage host companies from approving reasonable refunds, even when they are willing to do so. Failure to Remedy an Error : Despite immediate notification and a request for reinstatement within minutes, Capital One refused to correct what appears to be a system-driven error. Inadequate System Design : The application failed to provide clear confirmation safeguards for a high-value cancellation. In a modern digital environment, clearer warnings and protections should exist to prevent unintended transactions. Financial Impact : Capital One remains in possession of {$530.00} in cash belonging to me. While travel credits have been partially restored, I am still being penalized with a significant cash loss for an unauthorized cancellation that Capital One refused to fix. I have exhausted over 2.5 hours of customer service time with no acceptable resolution. Additional Context : At no point did I intend to cancel this reservation. I made immediate efforts to have the booking reinstated and acted in good faith throughout the process. This situation reflects a breakdown in both system design and customer service. A clearer user interface, proper confirmation safeguards, and transparent policies could have prevented this issue entirely.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation