Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Problem with rewards from credit card
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Follow-Up Complaint ( Challenge to Post-Hoc Fraud Justification ) I am submitting this follow-up in response to Capital Ones latest correspondence regarding my account closure and the forced redemption of my XXXX rewards miles. Capital Ones most recent response introduces, for the first time, an allegation of first party fraud as justification for denying my rights under New York General Business Law 520-e. This claim is inconsistent with the reasons originally provided to me at the time of account closure and appears to be a post-hoc justification. At the time my account was closed on XX/XX/2026, Capital One explicitly stated that : The closure was based on business concerns It was due to activity inconsistent with typical account usage It did not relate to [ my ] credit worthiness At no point in any contemporaneous communication was fraud alleged. Now, in response to my complaint, Capital One is asserting first party fraud based solely on the claim that documentation I provided validated only 14.66 % of the income stated on my application. This assertion is both incomplete and misleading. 1. Inadequate and Unreasonable Verification Process Capital One requested only personal bank statements, despite the fact that : My income is derived from multiple businesses and sources A substantial portion of verifiable income flows through business accounts between me and my spouse. Limiting verification to personal bank statements alone does not provide a complete or accurate picture of income. More importantly, I was never given the opportunity to provide additional documentation ( such as business financials, K-1s, tax returns, or other supporting records ) that would have fully substantiated my income. A failure to verify income based on incomplete documentation is not fraud. 2. No Evidence of Intentional Misrepresentation Capital One has not identified : Any specific statement that was knowingly false Any evidence of intentional misrepresentation Any conduct tied to misuse of the credit card or rewards program A discrepancy between documentation and reported incomeespecially where only partial documentation was requesteddoes not meet the standard of fraud. 3. Improper Reliance on 520-e ( 4 ) The statutory exception cited by Capital One applies only in cases of fraud or misuse by the holder with respect to the credit card account or rewards program. Capital One has not demonstrated : That any alleged issue was intentional That it related to use of the account or rewards program That it involved any misuse of rewards accumulation or redemption An underwriting or documentation dispute is not equivalent to fraud with respect to the account or rewards program. 4. Post-Hoc Justification to Avoid Statutory Obligations The timing and inconsistency of Capital Ones explanations raise serious concerns. Fraud was never mentioned at the time of closure and is only being raised now, after I asserted my rights under New York law. This suggests that the fraud designation is being used retroactively to avoid compliance with the 90-day redemption requirement. 5. Denial of Redemption Rights and Forced Devaluation Regardless of the above, Capital One : Closed my account on XX/XX/2026 Redeemed my XXXX miles by XX/XX/2026 Forced a conversion to a check at approximately XXXX XXXX per mile Provided no opportunity to redeem, transfer, or use the rewards as permitted under the program This deprived me of the ability to realize the true value of my accumulated rewards.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation