Consumer complaint received 2025-04-12 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a formal complaint against Capital One for its gross mishandling of a chargeback dispute I initiated under Visa Reason Code 13.1 Services Not Provided as Agreed. The actions taken by Capital One throughout this dispute process have resulted in significant financial, emotional, and physical harm. They reflect a pattern of behavior that is not only unethical but borders on intentional misconduct. 

Despite providing Capital One with detailed documentation proving that the merchant did not deliver the promised services, the bank repeatedly denied my dispute. I was forced to submit my case five times due to shifting, inconsistent reasons for denialincluding claims that I failed to provide information that was either never requested or had already been included in my original documentation. I submitted a comprehensive letter that directly addressed every question on their dispute form, even though the form itself was never provided to me. 

The merchant submitted a contract unrelated to my account or transaction, and Capital One accepted it as " compelling evidence '' while disregarding clear proof of merchant fraud and abandonment of service. Their representative, XXXX, even admitted on record that Capital One issues a second chargeback to the merchant bank if documentation is invalida process that contradicts Visa Core Rule 11.2, which permits only one representment. 

The second chargeback was issued before any attempt to escalate the dispute to pre-arbitration or arbitration, in clear violation of Visas established dispute cycle. It appears Capital One used this tactic not to protect the integrity of the process, but to conceal the fact that it had already accepted invalid documentation and wrongly denied a valid claim. In another dispute, Capital One resolved in my favor after a single chargeback, disproving XXXX 's claim and exposing the inconsistency and dishonesty in their handling procedures. This second chargeback tactic appears to be used selectively, not to protect the consumer, but to give Capital One cover after improperly closing disputes. 

Furthermore, the bank appears to be actively working against the cardholder by abusing its position in the dispute processgiving the merchant 30 days to respond while only allowing the cardholder 15. Despite submitting strong and well-organized evidence, Capital One accepted invalid and incomplete documentation from the merchant and closed the dispute in their favor. This conduct reveals a blatant disregard for fairness and a clear willingness to favor merchant interestseven when the evidence overwhelmingly supports the cardholders claims. 

Capital One is now attempting to cover its own misconduct. The bank inflicted harm on itself first by knowingly accepting clearly invalid documentation during the merchant 's initial representment. When this misconduct was exposed, Capital One had no choice but to close the dispute. This action forced the process to restart, compounding the harm already inflicted on the cardholder. In trying to shield itself from accountability, the bank caused additional, avoidable damage to its own customer, effectively punishing the cardholder for its own violation of Visa rules and ethical standards. This pattern of behavior is not only unethical, it is dangerous. Employees who knowingly act against the interests of the cardholder and their employer pose a significant liabilityboth legally and reputationally. Employees who engage in this type of misconduct hurt the companys reputation, erode consumer trust in the institution, and risk exposing the company to regulatory fines or lawsuits. When the dispute department chooses to protect its own errors and a fraudulent merchant over its cardholder, it signals a deep internal failure that ultimately threatens the integrity of the banks own operations and undermines Visa dispute system as a whole.

Had Capital Ones dispute department simply reviewed my documentation thoroughly as they promised, they would have seen clear, overwhelming evidence of the merchants misconduct. This complaint is 100 % valid, backed by hard documentation, and demonstrates the merchant walked away with {$16000.00} for services they never delivered. They cancelled services while the website was broken and incomplete, failed to train me as promised, and provided ad content I can not legally use or edit. I do not even have ownership of the website despite paying in full. 

They can keep their broken, non-custom website. This entire experience has been manipulated to benefit the merchant and protect the issuernot the cardholder. Capital Ones tactics reflect a misuse of the chargeback system to avoid consequences. This behavior undermines the Visa dispute process and shows deliberate disregard for the consumers right to fair treatment. 

I experienced a hypertensive crisis as a direct result of the stress this has caused. I have lost opportunities to recover income, suffered deterioration in my physical health due to the sedentary toll of writing appeals day after day, and continue to carry an {$8000.00} debt for services that were never delivered. 

This experience has completely eroded my trust in Capital Onenot just as a bank, but as an institution entrusted with consumer protection. The dispute resolution team is supposed to be the final safeguard for the customer. Instead, it became an instrument of obstruction, enabling a fraudulent merchant while undermining my rights. Some actions are not merely procedural errorsthey are ethical failures. No amount of institutional pressure justifies abandoning integrity, accountability, and the fundamental duty to protect consumers from harm. 

Capital One has failed in that duty. Their conduct reflects either gross negligence or deliberate misconduct. Either way, the result has been harm, betrayal, and a complete breakdown of trust.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation