Consumer complaint received 2022-02-02 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid 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: NY

Complaint narrative:
This is a follow-up to complaint XXXX. Capital One initially took steps to re-credit my account and continue the dispute process once the CFPB alerted them. I received a call from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX indicating that they had received the complaint and credited the account on XX/XX/XXXX, the supporting documentation I had submitted the week prior was submitted to the merchant ( XXXX ), and that this process was resumed. I was informed at this point that XXXX would determine if the merchant 's rebuttal would be sufficient to rule in their favor. I received communication on XX/XX/XXXX, which included the merchant 's submitted documents, indicating that a credit for only {$220.00} of the entire {$1700.00} was issued per XXXX ' acquiescence to the claims made regarding their repair job. 
I spoke with XXXX at Capital One on XX/XX/XXXX and advised her that neither XXXX nor Capital One seems to have addressed unauthorized charges on the account at all- only crediting me for subsequent repairs that had to be made to my vehicle. Upon further scrutiny of the merchant 's submitted documents, I noticed an invoice that was timestamped XXXX hours earlier ( XXXX ) than the time I retrieved my vehicle from the shop, with a signature that was imported from the stylus signature at XXXX ( which is also the invoice that I have and was initially submitted to Capital One ). This latter invoice included the timestamp for the card swipe as XXXX as well. When I reopened the dispute, I pointed out that the merchant 's documents were inaccurate, as I was not in the shop at XXXX to sign anything, and noted that the documents did not match and that the signature was imported/copied into this earlier document. This was alongside a letter requesting to reopen the case, call logs indicating back and forth communication with the shop from that day, itemizations of the original invoice- over a warranty that had not been honored ( brake pads ) and work that was not authorized to be performed ( exhaust ). When I contacted Capital One on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX informed me that this would not be going back to the merchant, and would go to XXXX at this time. 
I followed up on XX/XX/XXXX and spoke with XXXX, who advised that the documents were received and still under review, but that this would be sent to XXXX directly at this stage. I received a letter today, XX/XX/XXXX, advising ( yet again ) that Capital One could not assist. This letter stated that I had not provided all requested information. I have submitted documents XXXX times to Capital One- each submission building on the last ( as I was informed to do multiple times ), and I am repeatedly asked for the same plus more information. It does not appear that Capital One is reviewing this in the progressive manner they claim is the legal path- i.e.- they are not " building a case '', they are arbitrarily looking at each individual submission and claiming it is incomplete. 
Capital One has not worked this case from start to finish, and has not taken into account ALL submissions cumulatively. They have stated multiple times that the is a " progressive '' process, and that all documentation is reviewed, but it appears this is inaccurate. In this latest submission, they even turned a blind eye to a forged invoice copy submitted by the merchant- which was an act of fraud in and of itself, and should disqualify the merchant entirely in this dispute process. when I called Capital One today, a representative ( XXXX ) informed me that this could not be verified and that XXXX could simply claim my copy was forged- although mine has the exact time of the credit card swipe and XXXX had also submitted the same document previously. He also stated " we're not in the business of verifying documents '' - which seems odd considering this is a dispute that includes unauthorized charges, and the burden of proof would be on the merchant to prove otherwise. 

On my call today, XXXX informed me that he was unable to find some of these previously submitted documents and requested I send them in real time- he acknowledged receipt while I was on the call and advised he was going to attempt to " link all documents '' to my case to ensure that the full submission was considered. XXXX also had informed me " line by line '' they were reviewing what was supposedly missing and marking that the rejections from Capital One were invalid- as they were retrieving these documents in real-time while I was on the call today. He indicated that the reviewers had not been cross-referencing the submissions. He then informed me they went through the dispute and after XXXX hours of review, he tells me I am not allowed to dispute an unauthorized charge whatsoever. He proceeded to tell me that the initial dispute " reason '' ( which was entered by a representative on XX/XX/XXXX ) was not valid for this purpose, and was only valid for the repair work that needed to be subsequently re-done, and did not offer another path to dispute the remaining amount. He then spent the following few minutes repeatedly asking if I actually received the item in dispute- to which I responded I don't even know, since I am not going to put my car on a lift and look to see if something was installed on it. What an outrageous statement to make. He then arrogantly implied that he was doing so much more for me than anyone else, and proceeded to actually time-check me and complain we were on a call for well over an hour. He proceeded to mute himself while I was explaining more details as the call wore on ( assuming so he could badmouth without being heard on this recorded line ), proceeded to let out a groan and " UGHHH '', because he was getting annoyed, then abruptly cut me off because he was getting tired of arguing the point.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation