Consumer complaint received 2023-05-16 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
On XXXX I deposited a check for {$990.00}. 
On XXXX the check was returned for Non Sufficient Funds. 

The Bank, XXXX XXXX Bank, VALIDATED to Capital One that the check was a valid check to a valid account, but the account did not have sufficient funds. 

Capital One, on XXXX FROZE my accounts. ALL of my accounts. I have {$2600.00} of my personal funds FROZEN because of a XXXX party writing a check which had non sufficient funds. 
On XXXX my Mortgage XXXX was returned costing me {$25.00} in fees because my mortgage payment was RETURNED. 

I called Capital One twice to resolve this issue. They insist that it is their " policy '' to " Validate '' the check WITH THE XXXX XXXX. This XXXX party is difficult to get ahold of, and when I asked her to comply with Capital Ones Policy, she told me it's NOT HER PROBLEM and she does not want to do so. 

1. WHY is Capital One FORCING a THIRD PARTY to " Validate '' a non sufficient Funds Check? 

This has significant legal ramifications. 
A. On what XXXX  BASIS does Capital One have to FORCE a 3rd Party to comply with their internal " policy ''? 

B. On whaXXXX XXXX BASIS does Capital One have to force me to SUE the 3rd Party to comply with their policy? If the 3rd Party does not comply with Capital Ones policy, in order for my funds to be unfrozen, I must then sue them to force a judge to compel them to comply with Capital Ones policy (!!! ) 2. WHY is Capital One forcing a XXXX party to " validate '' a check when the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX that the check was valid and attempted to withdraw funds. The check was NOT RETURNED invalid, it was returned as VALID but non sufficient funds. 

XXXX. WHY is Capital One taking ADVERSE POSSESSION of my Property beyond the amount in dispute? What VALID LEGAL reason does Capital One have to in essence confiscate/ take adverse possession, even if temporary, of ALL of my funds in EXCESS of the amount in dispute? 

A. This creates significant financial harm to ANY CONSUMER of Capital One who encounters a nonsufficient funds check written to them by a 3rd party. 
B. Thus creates undue significant time and expenditure attempting to contact AND COMPEL A 3RD PARTY to " validate '' that they actually wrote the check. 

XXXX. Why is Capital One the ONLY BANK I have ever encountered this " policy '' This policy is Unreasonable. 
No other Bank to my knowledge has this absurd policy. 
Freezing funds beyond the disputed amount is unreasonable. 
Freezing funds causing significant financial harm is unreasonable. 
Freezing funds forcing consumers to compel a 3rd party to validate a check ALREADY VALIDATED by the 3rd party 's bank is unreasonable and absurd. 

This policy is Unconstitutional and ILLEGAL. 
Capital One has NO XXXX  BASIS to compel non-clients to comply with its internal policies. 
Capital Ones policy creates circumstances which forces a client to possibly sue the 3rd party to obtain a court order from a judge to comply with Capital Ones internal policy.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation