Consumer complaint received 2025-12-01 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
b'Summary: XXXX XXXX late-payment codes were migrated into a new Capital One account and later reinserted into my XXXX  credit file without notice, despite multiple disputes.\n\nI requested documentation showing the factual basis for the late-payment history that appears in my current Capital One account. Specifically, I asked for validation of the months of delinquency that originated under the former Walmart/Capital One co-branded account and were later migrated into a new Capital One account number. I also requested copies of Capital Ones verification records, XXXX XXXX  furnishing data, and any documentation showing the legacy late-payment history belonged to the current account number.\n\nThis complaint concerns a Capital One credit-card account that began as a Walmart/Capital One co-branded account and was later migrated into a new Capital One system after Walmart ended the partnership. After this migration, Capital One generated a new account number and replaced the prior Walmart-branded tradeline with a new Capital One tradeline.\n\nHowever, late-payment history from the discontinued Walmart tradeline was carried over into the new Capital One tradeline, even though it does not belong to the new account number and could not be validated when I disputed it. This resulted in derogatory history being reinserted into my XXXX  credit file without required notice, in violation of FCRA 611(a)(5)(B)(ii).\n\nPrior Disputes and Failure of Verification\n\nI disputed this issue twice with XXXX, most recently under Report No. XXXX (XXXX XXXX XXXX).\nI also disputed it directly with Capital One via certified mail on XXXX XXXX XXXX (USPS Tracking #XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX), requesting validation of the late-payment history that predates the new account number.\n\nCapital One could not provide any documentation showing that the late-payment history belonged to the current account number ending in XXXX. Instead, they simply reported the account as verified, even though the legacy Walmart data came from a closed system no longer in use.\n\nThis is consistent with industry reporting that former Walmart/Capital One customers experienced these same migration defects (see U.S. News article attached as an exhibit).\n\nReinsertion Without Notice\n\nAfter XXXX  reinvestigation closed on XXXX XXXX XXXX, the same legacy late-payment codes reappeared, even though they were tied to a discontinued account. No statutory 5-day reinsertion notice was issued to me, which is required under FCRA 611(a)(5)(B).\n\nWhy the Reporting Is Inaccurate\n\nThe payment-status grid in the new tradeline contains months of late payments that occurred under the Walmart account, not the current Capital One account.\n\nCapital One has never provided documentation showing the legacy late-payment months belong to the new account number.XXXXXXXX  is displaying merged data from two different accounts, which is factually inaccurate under FCRA 607(b).\n\nCapital One continued furnishing unverifiable information, violating FCRA 623(a)(1)(A) and 623(b)(1)(D).\n\nI was never notified of reinsertion, violating FCRA 611(a)(5)(B).\n\nThe inaccurate reporting and reinsertion caused measurable financial harm.\n\nDue to the erroneous derogatory history:\n\nmy credit score was lowered by the reinserted XXXX  late-payment codes\n\nI was denied credit and offered unfavorable terms on other applications\n\nmy auto insurance premiums increased\n\nI incurred financial setbacks due to lower creditworthiness\n\nThese harms arise directly from Capital Ones inaccurate furnishing and XXXX reinsertion without the required notice under FCRA 611(a)(5)(B).\n\nIn addition, significant time, postage costs, and certified-mail fees were required to correct errors that should not have existed.'

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation