Consumer complaint received 2024-03-22 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Privacy issues
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
To whom it may concern : My Venture One Mastercard account with Capital One was opened in XXXX. ( It is the only account I have with the company. ) My XXXX, per the Capital One dashboard ( app ), is XXXX. Unexpectedly, I had a transaction denied on XX/XX/XXXX. When I called to find out what was wrong, Capital One customer service informed me that my credit line was reduced because I ignored a XX/XX/XXXX letter requesting that I update my income. My new credit limit is now so low that it is essentially a non-functional account. After consuming nearly XXXX hours of my time, the only resolution I was offered was to reapply for a new account. I felt the behavior I encountered from multiple employees was evasive, coercive and disrespectful of my privacy. In the end I was told only that the decision was " final '' and that my credit limit would not be restored even though the initial customer service rep, whom I authorized my spouse to speak to earlier that day, took the information on our joint tax filing and initially made it sound like my credit limit could be restored. 

I called back around XXXX XXXX the same day when I realized I had no idea when or if I might be able to complete the transaction that had been denied earlier that day. When I got nowhere with overseas customer service, I asked to be transferred to a U.S. agent, at which point I asked for clarification on the XXXX letter which I never saw and may not have in fact received. In response, I was told only that it was " mailed '' and that there had been only one such notification. 

A woman I spoke to ( name unknown ) offered to send me a copy of the letter but my sense is that no follow through will come of it because in speaking to a senior account rep subsequent to that, I was flatly informed that no follow up would occur in response to my questions, even though one of my requests included requesting a copy of the Cardholder Agreement date at which point it was disclosed that Income Verification would be mandatory. ( To be clear, not the current Card Holder Agreement but the date the policy had gone into effect. ) All three people I spoke to were unable to answer my question, and the senior ( male ) account specialist refused to get in touch with their legal department and told me only that my account would be noted with my complaint, but not to expect any follow up. He, too, confirmed that a single notification went out and because I had " ignored '' it, they slashed my credit line by more than half. When I told him that I wanted to receive clarification from legal, he suggested only that I write their general services XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, UT. I then asked why they could not take the contents of my call and offer to follow up, and he again refused. ( When I said I had never experienced such treatment in all my years of banking with them or any other credit card issuer, all I was met with was silence. Silence was a big part of the call. They had no interest in apologizing or explaining anything, therefore I was forced to conclude that Capital One would rather I get a " hint '' and take my business elsewhere. ) I explained to two out of the three people I spoke with not including the rep my spouse had spoken with earlier that day that I have had credit accounts since XXXX and not once of those issuers, in that time including Capital One! has ever implied that income verification is mandatory. They insisted that it was my responsibility under the Card Holder Agreement to keep the account current. I explained that as a person XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, by " current '' I take that to mean contact details such as address, name, phone and email not income updates. I told them that I felt their action was punitive and would not incentivize me to open another account ; rather it had the opposite effect of feeling that my arm was being twisted. 

The overall tone of the conversation was extremely evasive and cagey, which left me with the impression that they knew they could not discuss this action by phone, possibly because there was no corresponding voluntary action on my part to open a new account or seek an increase in my credit line.

I ultimately told a male senior account specialist that I was contemplating closing my account because of how the situation was handled. ( Even if it is within the right of Capital One to demand this verification, why only ONE notice a letter I failed to receive by mail after which they slashed my credit line? ) I can not imagine how, with a credit line under {$10000.00} to begin with and an account in good standing with a high XXXX, why they would attempt to coerce me into reapplying for a new account as a means to obtain a higher credit limit as opposed to restoring the credit line I had to my existing account. 

Following this discussion I went on XXXX to try to determine if Income Verification is in fact mandatory. I found an article on XXXX XXXX and XXXX that BOTH asserted that existing account holders may safely ignore requests to update income, providing they do not intend to apply for a credit line increase. The articles I read explicitly said that no harm would come, that it would not result in less favorable terms for an existing account holder. ( See the XX/XX/XXXX article " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX? '' on XXXX and the XX/XX/XXXX article " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  '' on XXXX XXXX. ) The XXXX XXXX article states, in part : " Answering the question from your issuer may benefit you. But there are no negative repercussions to not providing income updates, says XXXX XXXX, senior analyst on the retail banking and payments team at XXXX XXXX, a financial services research firm. He adds that he has never provided an update when asked. 

In fact, XXXX notes, because answering that your income has gone up could lead to a credit limit increase that you dont want, some consumers might be better off withholding that information. Getting your credit line increased might sound good in theory, but it can be risky, too, especially if youre having trouble managing your debt, she says. '' Source XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXX piece states, in part : " if your income has gone down since opening your credit card account, its inadvisable to update it. The reason is that if you report a lower income, theres a chance that the credit card issuer will lower your credit limit as well. Besides not having access to the same purchasing power, having a lower credit limit can also hurt your credit score because it increases your credit utilization ratio, even if you carry the same balance as before. 



" There are no direct consequences of not updating your income. Remember, it is not required by law, and your issuer wont take any measures against you like closing your account, lowering your credit limit or raising your rates. The only real potential consequence is you may be less likely to receive a credit limit increase or you could miss out on the offer of new products or services you may be interested in. '' Source : https XXXX XXXX  Either the articles above are in error or Capital One is deviating from standard industry practice by demanding that the customer update income on an account that is A ) in good standing, and B ) already conservative ( a credit line below $ XXXX prior to the reduction ). 

For the above described reasons, I do not know how Capital One can justify a " final decision '' with " no appeal '' given that they have adequate payment history and XXXX score data on which to base risk assessment. Therefore, I am concerned that this situation may have arisen from a desire to compel customers such as myself into opening new accounts and closing old, otherwise functional accounts for the sake of manipulating their own internal accounting to investors and/or regulators. Regardless, this presumably allows Capital One to share forcibly obtained income data with third parties and in that respect deprive customers of protections they may have under State and federal law ( i.e. The California Privacy Act, to which I am entitled ). 

Another consideration here is the fact that I do NOT receive pre-approved credit card offers in the mail because for the better part of 15 years I have had locks or freezes on credit inquiries after being caught up in multiple national data breaches. While this is speculative, perhaps the fact I keep my credit locked down is objectionable to Capital One and by essentially forcing me to reapply, they can then gain access to information they might not otherwise have to market services and products ( including third party ). In that case, is it appropriate that I customers such as myself that are doing their level best to protect themselves from Identity Theft will see such efforts compromised by essentially creating a problem for which the solution is to open a new account that the customer otherwise would not have sought out? 

Whatever their motivation is, Capital One left me with the impression that I am entirely disposable and that they do not value my business in any way, shape or form. This caused emotional distress : I was unable to sleep the entire night because I could not make any sense of their out-of-left field behavior. ( At one point in my conversation with them, I even asked if they were taking action for another reason entirely such as suspicious activity or fraud but they remained entirely unwilling to divulge the reasoning behind the decision. ) In the end, I mentioned that I am a California resident with certain Privacy Act rights and that I would be taking further action ( i.e. this report ) and even that failed to move the senior account specialist to offer any resolution whatsoever. 

At this point, I intend to pay off the balance and close this account but NOT before I take additional steps to exercise my CA Privacy Act rights, which will include a data collection request. I also intend to pull my credit reports to see if there might be any indication there for why I was suddenly treated like a high-risk customer when nothing about my history of payment or XXXX score should have set off red flags. 

While it may be true, per my research, that the Credit Card Act of XXXX requires credit card issuers to verify income prior to opening new accounts and that it may be customary to volunteer such information before requesting a higher credit limit, is there any legality to the notion that a Card Holder Agreement entitles Capital One to DEMAND updates when they have already have a reasonable basis on which to judge risk on existing account holders using customer payment history and XXXX score? What other purpose does income verification serve other than marketing, which the customer should be entitled to opt out of? ( I can't recall but I may have exercised these opt-outs in the past. Could they be trying to force me to open a new account so my preferences will be reset? ) In conclusion, the desired resolution I want is for Capital One to issue an apology for how this situation was handled ( i.e. treating me like a criminal instead of a valued customer ). Secondarily, I want a CFPB and/or State investigation into what would appear to be non-disclosure of non-standard account evaluation practices ( risk assessment, marketing or otherwise ) which effectively violates consumers ' right to privacy and/or civil rights ( i.e. could this income verification demand mask retaliation for an entirely different reason, such as the fact that I made a religious charitable donation in the weeks before the alleged XX/XX/XXXX letter was mailed out )? While I am cognizant that some of the assertions I bring up here may seem far fetched, the sheer degree of stonewalling I received is suggestive of the notion that the employees I interacted with were fully aware that they were operating outside the scope of what the law in my State ( or at the federal level ) allows, Card Holder Agreement notwithstanding. I have to believe that there is more to this situation than I am being told and so for the sake of other consumers, I hope a thorough investigation will take place. 


Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation