Consumer complaint received 2026-05-28 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Changes in terms mid-deal or after closing
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
Issue XXXX : Coerced Funding Capital One Was a XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I was pressured by XXXX XXXX XXXX into calling Capital One Auto Finance to finalize funding for a vehicle purchase ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). I did not want to proceed with this transaction considering the vehicle experienced clutch failure XXXX ( XXXX ) days after purchase date ( XX/XX/XXXX ). The dealership placed the call on speakerphone, meaning Capital One representatives were able to hear the full interaction between me and the dealership in real time. During this call, with Capital One listening on speaker, I explicitly asked the dealership to rescind the deal. I made it clear that I did not want to move forward with the purchase. The dealership refused to rescind but instead offered to fix the vehicle under a service agreement thereby acknowledging that the vehicle had known defects or issues at the time of sale that had not been properly disclosed to me prior to signing. Despite hearing my explicit request to rescind, and despite hearing the dealer 's admission that the vehicle required repairs, Capital One proceeded to fund the loan anyway. Capital One had a duty to halt funding upon witnessing clear signs of consumer duress and a direct rescission request. They failed to do so, which I believe makes them complicit in the dealership 's coercive conduct. Issue XXXX : Capital One Refuses to Compel Dealer Buy-Back As the lienholder and funding source for this transaction, Capital One maintains a dealer agreement with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Under standard auto lending dealer agreements, lenders must compel the buy-back of a loan when the underlying transaction involved buyer 's assertion of fraud against the Seller. Given that Capital One had firsthand knowledge as a direct witness on the phone call that I was pressured into finalizing funding, that I requested rescission, and that the dealer admitted vehicle defects and agreed to fix them and later refusing to do so, Capital One has more than sufficient grounds to exercise their contractual buy-back rights against the dealer. They have refused to do so, choosing instead to protect the dealership at my expense as the consumer. Issue XXXX : Deliberate Miscategorization of My Complaint When I contacted Capital One to formally complain about this situation, my complaint was deliberately miscategorized by their representative XXXX, during a call on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Rather than addressing the substantive issues I raised including the coerced funding, my witnessed rescission request, and the dealer 's admission of vehicle defects Capital One categorized my complaint in a manner that allowed them to avoid investigating and addressing the actual issues at hand. This deliberate miscategorization constitutes a pattern of avoidance and obstruction. By refusing to properly categorize and investigate my complaint, Capital One is shielding both themselves and the dealership from accountability for a transaction that should never have been funded. Issue XXXX : Privacy and Biometric Data Violations Additionally, I have am unable to submit a formal consumer privacy request to Capital One requesting access to all call recordings associated with my account, including the critical call during which the coercion and rescission request occurred ; this is because Capital One has XXXX my ability to login to my account, through which a privacy data request must be made. I have made a request via telephone witht he XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX at Capital One access to any biometric data ( voiceprints ) ; but my request was denied without a subpoena. Under the California XXXX Privacy Act ( CCPA ) and applicable state biometric privacy laws, I have the legal right to access this data. Capital One has failed to comply with this request in a timely manner. These call recordings constitute critical evidence of their complicity in the dealership 's coercive conduct, and their failure to produce them suggests a deliberate effort to suppress evidence. Issue XXXX : Unauthorized Contract Switch I Never Signed a Contract with Capital One To my knowledge and belief, I never signed a financing contract with Capital One Auto Finance. The original loan agreement I entered into was with XXXX XXXX, as is reflected in my Insurance Documents with XXXX XXXX ; documents which were sent to XXXX, and also accepted and filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX as acceptable proof of car insurance. At some point, without my informed consent, the dealership switched the financing to Capital One, which is why they needed me to finalize the funding on the phone call they pressured me to make on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) days after the sell date, XXXX ( XXXX ) days after the mechanical failure of the car, and XXXX ( XXXX ) days after I had returned the car to the dealership. I did not agree to this change, I was not presented with a new contract to review and sign, and I did not authorize Capital One to be my lienholder. By accepting and funding a loan that I never contractually agreed to, Capital One is actively upholding and benefiting from the dealership 's fraud. They are enforcing a financial obligation against me that was procured through deception a contract was altered or substituted without the consumer 's knowledge or consent, which should render it voidable at its inception. Issue XXXX : Contractual Buy-Back Clause Capital One 's Own Contract Requires Action Furthermore, even if Capital One disputes the above and maintains that a valid contract exists between us, standard auto lending agreements including those used by Capital One contain provisions stating that if a buyer asserts fraud in the inducement of the sale, the lender is obligated to compel the selling dealer to repurchase or buy back the contract. I am hereby asserting fraud. The dealership engaged in fraud through coercion, failure to disclose vehicle defects, unauthorized switching of my financing, and refusal uphold repair agreement per service agreement, and failure to honor my rescission request. Therefore, it is my assertion that under either legal theory, Capital One must act : Primary Argument : No valid contract exists between me and Capital One because I never signed XXXX the dealership fraudulently switched my financing from [ XXXX XXXX ] to Capital One without my consent. Capital One must release me from this unauthorized obligation immediately and return all funds collected. Alternative Argument : Even if the contract is deemed valid, I am formally asserting fraud in the underlying transaction. Under the terms of Capital One 's own dealer agreement and standard auto lending contract provisions, when a consumer asserts fraud, the lender is contractually required to compel the dealer to buy back the loan. Capital One 's refusal to exercise this contractual right despite having firsthand witness knowledge of the fraud constitutes a breach of their obligations to the consumer and complicity in the dealer 's misconduct. Under either theory, the result is the same : Capital One must terminate this loan, compel the dealer buy-back, and make me whole. Their refusal to act under either legal basis demonstrates that they are not acting in good faith but are instead choosing to profit from a fraudulent transaction at the consumer 's expense.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation