Consumer complaint received 2025-12-18 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
b'Capital One XXXX Credit Card# XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXAmount in Dispute:  $XXXX  NATURE OF COMPLAINT\n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX I discovered that five previously authorized ACH credit card payments made to my Capital One account are being reversed through "R10" return codes--"Customer Advises Not Authorized"--initiated by XXXX XXXX, (acting as the Receiving Depository Financial Institution ("RDFI") for XXXX XXXX XXXX account). These reversals are improper because: (1) I never claimed these transactions were unauthorized; (2) I never signed or provided a Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit ("WSUD") as mandatorily required under NACHA Operating Rules; and (3) XXXX  is abusing the "R10" code to cover an overdraft in a separate, unrelated account (XXXX XXXX).\n\nCapital One, as the Originating Depository Financial Institution ("ODFI"), has the right and responsibility under NACHA Rules to dishonor these improperly initiated returns. If Capital One allows these returns to process without exercising its rights under the NACHA Operating Rules, I will be liable for double payment on my credit card account--a result that is both unjust and contrary to the consumer protection purposes of the ACH system.\n\nII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\nA. The Authorized Transactions\n\nI maintain a XXXX XXXX XXXX account held at XXXX XXXX. Using this account, I made the following authorized ACH payments to my Capital One credit card:\n\n XXXX XXXX XXXX $XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX $XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX $XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX: $XXXXThese transactions were properly authorized by me, processed through the ACH network, and credited to my Capital One credit card account. I have no dispute regarding these transactions.\n\nB. The Improper "R10" Returns\n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX I discovered five pending transactions on my Capital One credit card account labeled "Returned Mobile ACH Payment -- CONA" totaling $XXXX Capital One customer service informed me that XXXX XXXX  returned these transactions using "R10" return codes with the notation "Customer Advises Not Authorized."\n\nThis is false. I never advised XXXX  or any other party that these transactions were unauthorized. I never signed, submitted, or provided any Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit. XXXX has fabricated or misrepresented the basis for these returns.\n\nC. The True Reason for XXXX  Actions\n\nThere is a separate XXXX account that went into overdraft as of approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX due to unrelated transactions. Prior to that overdraft, I had transferred funds from that account into my Cash Plus account (the account used to make the Capital One payments). Rather than pursuing proper collection remedies for the overdraft in the separate account, XXXX  is abusing the ACH "R10" return code system to claw back funds from Capital One--funds that were properly paid from my Cash Plus account, which was never in overdraft.\n\nThis is an improper use of the "R10" code, which exists solely to address genuinely unauthorized transactions upon a customer\'s signed, sworn statement--not as a collection mechanism for unrelated account overdrafts.\n\nIII. NACHA RULE VIOLATIONS\n\nA. XXXX Breach of Warranty (Subsection 3.13.2)\n\nUnder the NACHA Operating Rules, an RDFI transmitting an "R10" Extended Return Entry makes a specific warranty to the ODFI. Subsection 3.13.2 states:\n\n"An RDFI that Transmits an Extended Return Entry warrants to each ODFI, ACH Operator, and Gateway that, prior to initiating the Extended Return Entry, the RDFI obtained a Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit from the Receiver that conforms to the requirements of Subsection 3.12.4"\n\XXXX has warranted to Capital One that it possesses a WSUD signed by me for each of these five transactions. This warranty is false. I never signed any such document. XXXX cannot produce a WSUD because none exists.\n\nB. The Mandatory WSUD Requirement (Subsection 3.12.4)\n\nThe NACHA Rules are explicit that the WSUD is mandatory, not optional. Subsection 3.12.4 requires:\n\n"A Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit must be signed or similarly authenticated by the Receiver\n\nThe WSUD must include:\n\n Receiver\'s printed name and signature\n\n Receiver\'s account number\n\n The identity of the party debiting the account\n\n The date the entry was posted\n\n The dollar amount of the entry\n\n The reason for the return\n\n An assertion from the Receiver that the WSUD is true and correct\n\n An assertion that the Receiver is an authorized signer\n\nWithout a conforming WSUD, there is no evidence linking the "R10" return to any customer action. The "R10" code is merely an administrative tool for inter-bank communication; it has no probative value regarding whether a customer actually authorized a return.\n\nIV. CAPITAL ONE\'s RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS ODFI\n\nA. Right to Dishonor the Return (Subsection 2.13.6)\n\nCapital One, as the ODFI, has the right to dishonor these Extended Return Entries. Under NACHA Subsection 2.13.6.1(b), an ODFI may dishonor a return when the RDFI has not complied with the requirements of the NACHA Rules--including the mandatory WSUD requirement.\n\nThe NACHA Rules provide Capital One with a Timely Dishonor remedy: Capital One may dishonor the return within 5 banking days of receipt.\n\nB. Right to Demand the WSUD (Subsection 3.12.6)\n\nCapital One has an absolute and unconditional right to demand the WSUD from XXXX. Subsection 3.12.6 states:\n\n"An RDFI Transmitting an Extended Return Entry... must provide to an ODFI a copy of the Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit obtained from the Receiver... within ten Banking Days after receiving a written request from the ODFI\n\nIf XXXX fails to provide a conforming WSUD upon Capital One\'s written request, XXXX will be in breach of its warranty under Subsection 3.13.2, and Capital One may pursue a Late Dishonor or NACHA arbitration.\n\nC. Capital One\'s Responsibility to Its Customer\n\nIf Capital One allows these returns to process without exercising its rights under the NACHA Rules, I will be liable for the original credit card charges plus forced to make replacement payments--effectively paying twice for the same obligations. This outcome:\n\n Rewards XXXX abuse of the ACH system\n\n Harms Capital One\'s customer (me) through no fault of my own\n\n Undermines the integrity of the ACH network\'s consumer protections\n\nV. RELIEF REQUESTED\n\nI respectfully request that Capital One:\n\n1. Immediately exercise its right to Dishonor the five pending "R10"  Customer Advises Not Authorized  returns totaling XXXX2. Issue a written request to XXXX XXXX under Subsection 3.12.6 demanding production of the WSUDs purportedly supporting these returns;\n\n3. If XXXX fails to produce conforming WSUDs, pursue all available remedies under NACHA Rules including Late Dishonor and arbitration;\n\n4. Ensure that I am not held liable for double payment as a result of XXXX XXXXmproper conduct.\n\nVI. URGENCY\n\nThese reversals are currently pending and processing as of XXXX XXXX XXXX The NACHA Rules provide Capital One with only 5 banking days to exercise a Timely Dishonor. Immediate action is required to prevent irreparable harm to my account and to preserve Capital One\'s remedies under the NACHA Rules.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nSedigheh Moazen\n\nDate: XXXX XXXX XXXXAttachments:\n\n Screenshot of Capital One account showing pending R10 returns'

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation