Consumer complaint received 2026-05-21 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: KS

Complaint narrative:
XXXX is billing me and attempting to collect on a XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX that I dispute because the account and/or balance is tied to identity theft and has not appeared on my consumer credit reports for approximately XXXX year after it was removed following an identity-theft investigation. My XXXX statement for the billing period XX/XX/year> through XX/XX/year> shows a new balance of {$240.00}, a {$200.00} ACH payment adjustment, a {$29.00} returned check charge, {$9.00} in interest, a {$39.00} minimum payment, and a payment due date of XX/XX/year>. The statement also says my account is past due, warns that my account is nearing closure, and states : This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained may be used for that purpose. I dispute this account, the balance, the XXXX payment adjustment, the returned check charge, the interest, the past-due status, the account-nearing-closure warning, and any attempt to collect. This is not a routine billing issue. This item has not been reporting on my credit for approximately XXXX year after it was removed following an identity-theft investigation, yet XXXX is now attempting to collect through billing, fees, interest, past-due treatment, and collection language. Before XXXX responds with boilerplate, I want to preempt the predictable excuses. XXXX XXXX should not claim this is harmless because the item is not currently reporting on my credit reports. The fact that XXXX may not currently be reporting the account does not give XXXX permission to continue billing, assessing fees, assessing interest, treating the account as past due, threatening closure, or attempting to collect on an identity-theft account. XXXX XXXX should not claim this is merely a normal billing statement. The statement expressly says the account is past due, demands payment, warns that the account is nearing closure, and states that it is an attempt to collect a debt. That is collection activity, not neutral account servicing. XXXX, XXXX should not claim that the {$200.00} ACH payment adjustment proves I owe the balance. A payment adjustment is not proof that I opened, authorized, used, or benefited from the account. If XXXX claims the adjustment is valid, it must provide the XXXX authorization records, return code, return date, payment-processing records, account ledger, and documentary evidence showing why the adjustment was proper. XXXX XXXX should not claim the {$29.00} returned check charge and {$9.00} interest charge are automatically valid. If the underlying account or balance is identity-theft related or disputed, then all related fees, finance charges, past-due treatment, and collection language are also disputed. XXXX XXXX should not rely on identity-matching data. Matching my name, address, Social Security number, date of birth, phone number, or mailing address is not proof that I opened or authorized the account. Identity thieves use real victim information. Identity matching only shows my information may have been used ; it does not prove personal liability. XXXX XXXX should not claim that removal from credit reporting is unrelated to collection. If the item was removed or suppressed after an identity-theft investigation, XXXX can not sidestep that history by continuing to bill and collect privately while avoiding credit-report visibility. That would be a back-door attempt to revive an identity-theft account without proving liability. XXXX, XXXX should not claim that this is not collection simply because XXXX is the original creditor. XXXX own statement uses collection language and attempts to collect a disputed balance directly. The issue is XXXX own billing and collection conduct on an account I maintain resulted from identity theft. XXXX, XXXX should not treat we investigated before as a permanent excuse. If the account was removed after an identity-theft investigation and then XXXX later resumed billing or collection activity, XXXX should be required to show what changed, what evidence it obtained, and why it believes it can lawfully collect now. This conduct raises serious FCRA concerns under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ), which requires furnishers to maintain reasonable procedures to respond to identity-theft block notices and prevent refurnishing blocked identity-theft information. It also raises concerns under 15 U.S.C. 1681m ( f ) ( 1 ), which prohibits selling, transferring for consideration, or placing for collection a debt after notice under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 that the debt resulted from identity theft. This also raises billing-error concerns under 15 U.S.C. 1666 and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026.13, because XXXX is billing me, assessing related fees and interest, treating the account as past due, and using collection language while I dispute the account and balance. XXXX should not collect disputed amounts, related fees, or related finance charges unless and until it completes a lawful investigation and provides documentary evidence showing that the account and balance are valid. I believe XXXX conduct appears unfair, deceptive, devious, and in reckless or willful disregard of my rights under the FCRA, FCBA/TILA, and Regulation Z.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation