Consumer complaint received 2025-11-02 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Closing your account — Company closed your account
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
This letter serves as a formal demand for action and a complaint against Capital One for its repeated, egregious, and contradictory actions concerning the handling and reporting of my credit card accounts. Capital Ones conduct demonstrates a systemic failure to comply with federal consumer protection laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). This the same complaint as I solely stated in case file XXXX. 

On XX/XX/year>, Capital One closed XXXX of my accounts, stating the reason was " activity on this or another account is not consistent with our expectations for account usage. '' Subsequent communications from Capital One have provided a series of inconsistent and contradictory explanations, which have caused significant harm to my credit standing and financial well-being : On XX/XX/year>, Capital Ones Fraud Operations team stated that a fraud investigation found " insufficient evidence of fraud '' and that disputed charges were " valid. '' The letter warned that any temporary credits for these charges would be reversed. 

On XX/XX/year>, in a separate documented communication, Capital One wrote to me stating its fraud investigation was " now resolved '' and that I was not held responsible for any unauthorized charges due to Capital One 's " {$0.00} liability promise. '' Capital Ones XX/XX/year>, letter directly contradicts the previous XX/XX/year>, determination. 

On XX/XX/year>, Capital One denied my request to reopen XXXX of my accounts because " A fraud alert was on this Capital One account at the time of your request. '' This is a new, specific, and potentially unlawful reason that contradicts the vague " inconsistent activity '' reason given just XXXX month prior. 

In a XX/XX/year>, letter from Capital One, the company claimed their investigation found disputed transactions were " valid and were authorized by you '' but still issued a " {$59.00} '' credit " as a one-time courtesy '' while re-billing other temporary credits. 

In a Capital One phone conversation ( Agent number provided on transcript ), a Capital One agent attributed the closure of my accounts to a " first party fraud '' determination but then contradicted that by stating " it looks like someone else may have tried to use it. '' On XX/XX/year>, Capital One responded to a CFPB complaint by reiterating that the accounts were closed due to " business concerns that did not relate to your credit worthiness. '' In the same letter, Capital One refused to provide phone records and call transcripts, stating they are " proprietary information '' and can not be shared. This raises the concern that Capital One is purposefully concealing evidence supportive of this argument. 

The response to the CFPB not only contradicts Capital Ones previously stated determinations but also identifies potential acts of bad faith to deceive the CFPB. 

Capital Ones contradictory and variable position change conduct constitutes a clear and actionable pattern of bad faith and potential legal violations : Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Capital One has reported information to consumer reporting agencies ( XXXX  ) as " accurate. '' However, the company has furnished inconsistent and contradictory reasons for the account closures, failing to meet the FCRAs standard of reporting with maximum possible accuracy. The denial to reopen accounts due to a " fraud alert '' is a material fact that should be reflected in any reporting, yet Capital One has insisted on the vague " business concerns '' reason, which misrepresents the true reason for the account closure, based upon their inconsistent responses. 

Violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). Capital One has failed to conduct a proper and consistent investigation into the disputed charges. The companys own documents contradict each otherfirst claiming " insufficient evidence of fraud, '' then stating the fraud case was " resolved '' with " {$0.00} liability, '' all while re-billing temporary credits. This chaotic and inconsistent process violates the requirement to conduct a good-faith investigation into billing disputes.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation