Consumer complaint received 2026-04-30 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: IA

Complaint narrative:
FACTS On XX/XX/year>, I used my Capital One Quicksilver Credit Card to book an Airbnb in XXXX for my family of XXXX for the nights of March 1720, 2026. The charge was {$1300.00}. We checked in on XX/XX/XXXX. That evening, my party accidentally locked ourselves out of the property. During the resulting phone call with the host, I asked whether spare keys were available on-site. The host informed me that no spare keys were available because a prior guest had retained a set of keys to the property and that situation had not been resolved. This was a material safety hazard that the host had not disclosed prior to or during check-in. After learning that an unknown third party held active keys to the entire-home rental we had paid for, my family did not feel safe staying there. We immediately relocated to a hotel for the remainder of our stay, incurring substantial additional out-of-pocket cost. That same evening I contacted XXXX support to report the issue and request a refund. I followed up over the next several days through online chat, telephone, and XXXX social media support channel. XXXX declined to refund the charge and offered only a {$200.00} future-stay credit, which I rejected as wholly inadequate against the {$1300.00} charge plus the unanticipated hotel costs. CAPITAL ONES HANDLING OF THE DISPUTE I filed a dispute with Capital One ( Case Number XXXX ). On XX/XX/year>, Capital One initially resolved the dispute in my favor and issued a temporary credit. On XX/XX/year>, Capital One reversed that decision based on a generic merchant rebuttal that goods were as described and received in good condition. That rebuttal did not address the safety hazard at the XXXX of my dispute and did not refute any specific fact I asserted. Notably, XXXX own evidence packet ( page XXXX of XXXX ) acknowledges that on XX/XX/year>, I contacted XXXX customer service and the resulting ticket was internally categorized as Problems with keys, smart lock, or getting into listing corroborating my timeline in XXXX own internal records. Capital Ones XX/XX/XXXX letter gave me until XX/XX/year> to submit additional documentation. On XX/XX/year>, I submitted : ( XXXX ) a detailed appeal letter setting out the facts, the merchants policy violations, and my rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act ; and ( 2 ) six appendices of supporting evidence including the booking receipt, phone records, hotel receipts proving relocation, support chat transcripts, social media transcripts, and excerpts of XXXX own published policies ( which entitle guests to a refund for safety or health hazards and accommodations significantly different than advertised ). On XX/XX/year> I submitted a supplemental letter providing additional details and context for the chat transcripts provided with my earlier letter. On XX/XX/year> XXXX day after my submittal Capital One sent a closure letter stating my response lacks all of the previously requested information needed to validate your dispute, without identifying which specific item or items were deficient. Concerned that the rapid turnaround indicated only a procedural review, I prepared a follow-up letter that same day requesting substantive re-investigation. That follow-up letter was structured directly around the XXXX documentation categories Capital One had requested in its XX/XX/XXXX letter, addressed each one with specific evidence, and formally invoked 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ) to request that any further denial identify the specific deficiency. On XX/XX/year> less than XXXX hours after Capital One received my follow-up letter Capital One sent a third closure letter. That XX/XX/XXXX letter is verbatim identical to the XX/XX/XXXX closure letter. The text, the boilerplate, and the non-specific deficiency claim are word-for-word the same. Only the date and the internal document reference number have changed. Capital One did not engage with any of the additional information, did not identify any specific deficiency despite my explicit request that it do so, and did not respond to the FCBA procedural concerns I raised. PROCEDURAL CONCERNS UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT BILLING ACT Under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ) ), a creditor that determines no billing error occurred must provide a written explanation setting forth the reasons for that determination. Capital One has now issued two consecutive denial letters on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year> that contain identical boilerplate, identify no specific deficiency, do not engage with the substantive evidence submitted, do not address the merchants own internal record corroborating my account, do not address the merchants own published policies, and do not respond to the FCBA procedural concerns raised in my XX/XX/XXXX follow-up letter. The pattern suggests these denials are not the product of a good-faith substantive re-investigation but of a templated process that does not satisfy the creditors obligations under Regulation Z. WHAT I HAVE DONE TO RESOLVE I attempted resolution directly with the merchant through online chat, telephone, and social media outreach before disputing. I filed a formal dispute with Capital One. After the dispute was reversed on XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a detailed appeal with two letters and six appendices of supporting evidence on XX/XX/XXXX and additional detail on XX/XX/XXXX. After Capital One closed the case on XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a follow-up letter on XX/XX/XXXX organized around the four documentation categories Capital One had requested and explicitly invoking 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ). Capital One denied my dispute again on XX/XX/XXXX with a verbatim copy of its prior denial. I am now escalating to the CFPB because I have exhausted Capital Ones internal dispute process without receiving a substantive review. DESIRED RESOLUTION I request that Capital One : ( 1 ) conduct a genuine substantive re-investigation that considers the full XX/XX/XXXX & XXXX submissions together with my XX/XX/XXXX follow-up letter ; ( 2 ) reverse the closure of my dispute ; ( 3 ) issue a permanent credit for the full disputed amount of {$1300.00} plus any related interest charges or fees ; and ( 4 ) provide a written explanation that complies with 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ) by identifying with specificity any documentation deemed insufficient and the reasons for that determination.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation