Consumer complaint received 2026-05-15 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ( now a division of Capital One, N.A., per XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX written correspondence ) opened a credit card account with an initial credit line of {$10000.00} following a hard credit inquiry that adversely affected my credit profile. The account has never been activated and has never been used. XXXX has issued three materially inconsistent positions on the same account : ( 1 ) PHONE XX/XX/XXXX ( recorded line, approx. XXXX XXXX PT ) : An Executive Office representative ( XXXX ) stated, after senior-level review, that XXXX policy is to assign a maximum initial credit limit of {$10000.00} to every new cardholder regardless of net worth, credit score, income, or assets, and that no new cardholder in the history of XXXX has been assigned a higher initial limit. ( 2 ) WRITING XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX written response stated the limit was determined based on the financial information you provided within the application and bureau attributes inconsistent with the universal-cap position. The same letter stated XXXX is unable to provide you with specific details on our process, directly refusing the ECOA-required statement of specific principal reasons. ( XXXX ) SYSTEM XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX sent a marketing email to the same unactivated account stating You may qualify for a future credit line increase and requesting updated income contradicting the prior universal-cap position. My financial profile at application : FICO score above XXXX, over 30 years of flawless credit history, XXXX personal debt, and substantial liquid assets. A peer issuer ( XXXX XXXX ) extended a {$50000.00} initial credit line on a materially similar application. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a formal final demand letter to XXXX Executive Office and to XXXX XXXX, Chairman/CEO of Capital One Financial Corporation , requesting either ( a ) a {$50000.00} credit line increase consistent with my profile, or ( b ) account closure with goodwill removal of the hard inquiry, together with a written ECOA-compliant statement of specific principal reasons. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response did not engage with any substantive issue, did not provide the ECOA-required statement, and stated XXXX may not acknowledge or respond to additional inquiries. XXXX re-attached the XX/XX/XXXX letter as if re-sending the original non-response constituted a substantive response. Violations alleged : ( 1 ) failure to provide statement of specific principal reasons for adverse credit action as required by 15 U.S.C. 1691 ( d ) and 12 C.F.R. 1002.9 ( b ) ( 2 ) XXXX written response that it is unable to provide specific details on our process is precisely the type of generic response that CFPB Circular 2023-03 identifies as insufficient under Regulation B ; ( 2 ) UDAAP materially inconsistent statements about credit line determination policy on the same account ; ( 3 ) refusal to remove hard credit inquiry on an unactivated, never-used account where the underlying credit decision is the subject of an unresolved ECOA dispute.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation