Consumer complaint received 2026-02-24 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am writing in formal response to Capital Ones letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, regarding the above-referenced accounts XXXX. After carefully reviewing your response and the documentation provided, I must formally dispute your conclusions and reiterate that I do not recognize, authorize, or accept responsibility for the accounts ending in XXXX and XXXX. Your letter states that after an internal investigation, Capital One believes the accounts belong to me. However, your determination appears to rely primarily on internal database correlations and generalized public-record associations rather than legally sufficient proof of contractual liability. I am requesting competent evidencenot assumptions, correlations, or internal conclusions. 1. Alleged Online Applications You state that : Account ending in XXXX was opened on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX via online application. Account ending in XXXX was opened on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX via online application. XXXX An online application alone does not establish lawful contractual formation without demonstrable proof of : The IP address used at the time of submission The device fingerprint The geolocation of submission Authentication logs Electronic signature validation records Multi-factor identity verification results To date, you have not provided : A copy of the complete application The full terms agreed to at the time of submission Timestamp metadata IP logs Proof of identity verification procedures used Under federal and state law governing electronic transactions, a creditor must be able to demonstrate assent, identity verification, and proper authentication. Merely stating that an application was submitted online does not satisfy evidentiary standards for proving contractual liability. If these accounts were opened through fraud, identity theft, or unauthorized digital activity, then internal reliance on data points without full authentication documentation is insufficient. 2. Reliance on Public Record Address Linkage Your letter repeatedly states that addresses such as : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MO XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, MO XXXX were linked to me by public records XXXX. Public record linkage does not prove that I personally opened these accounts. Public record address associations can occur due to : Data aggregation errors Mixed consumer files Prior residency not connected to application activity Identity compromise Third-party database inaccuracies The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires maximum possible accuracy, not probabilistic association. You must provide : The actual documentary evidence proving that I personally submitted the applications. The full underwriting file. The identity verification checklist completed at origination. Without this, your conclusion is unsupported. 3. Alleged Recorded Phone Calls You claim that recorded calls from XX/XX/XXXXXXXX confirm that I contacted Capital One and acknowledged the accounts XXXX. If that is your position, then I formally request : The complete, unedited audio recordings. The metadata for those recordings. The caller ID logs. The authentication questions asked and answered. Proof that the caller was verified beyond surface-level information. Identity theft victims are frequently targeted through : Account takeovers. Social engineering. Caller ID spoofing. Data breach exploitation. A recorded call does not automatically prove identity unless you can demonstrate secure identity authentication. 4. Alleged Social Security and Date of Birth Verification Your letter states that the Social Security number and date of birth were verified as mine XXXX. Again, this is not sufficient proof. If my personal information was compromised through : A data breach, Prior identity theft, Unauthorized disclosure, Phishing, Dark web exposure, then the presence of correct SSN and DOB does not establish that I personally opened the accounts. The Federal Trade Commission recognizes that identity thieves often possess full SSN and DOB information. I previously notified relevant agencies regarding identity theft concerns. Under the FCRA 605B ( Block of Information Resulting from Identity Theft ), furnishers must block reporting upon receipt of an identity theft report unless they can prove the information is accurate and attributable to the consumer. You have not provided documentary proof that satisfies this standard. 5. Alleged Settlement Payments Your letter states that : Account XXXX charged off XX/XX/XXXXXXXX and was settled XX/XX/XXXXXXXX for {$110.00}. Account XXXX charged off XX/XX/XXXXXXXX and was settled XX/XX/XXXXXXXX for {$110.00}. XXXX I do not recall authorizing these settlements. If payments were made, you must provide : The source account numbers. ACH authorization forms. IP addresses for online payments. Payment instrument copies. Bank routing confirmation. If payments were made from an account not owned or controlled by me, that is further evidence of fraud. If payments were made from an account linked to me, you must prove that I personally authorized them. A payment does not constitute admission of liability if it was made under confusion, misrepresentation, or identity compromise. 6. Refusal to Provide Documentation Without Additional Identification Your letter states that you will not provide application or billing statements without notarized request and two forms of ID XXXX. I find this contradictory because : You claim you verified my identity sufficiently to conclude I am liable. Yet you now claim you can not verify me sufficiently to provide documents. If you have already verified identity to attribute liability, then you should be able to provide the documentation relied upon. Withholding documentation while continuing reporting places me at a procedural disadvantage. 7. Continued Reporting to Credit Reporting Agencies You state that you have asked CRAs to resume reporting and that the accounts will reflect for up to seven years XXXX. If the accounts are fraudulent, continued reporting violates : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( duty to report accurately ) FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ( duty to investigate disputes ) FCRA 605B ( identity theft blocking requirements ) If you can not produce : The original signed contract, Full chain of authentication evidence, Device/IP forensic proof, Valid authorization of settlement, then continued reporting constitutes reckless disregard for accuracy. 8. Cease and Desist Status You indicate the accounts are in cease and desist status XXXX. While you state this is not an attempt to collect, the continued furnishing of derogatory data functions as economic collection pressure. Credit reporting impacts : Mortgage eligibility Auto financing Employment background checks Insurance underwriting Thus, reporting is materially harmful. 9. Customer Agreement Inclusion The enclosed Customer Agreement ( pages 12-17 ) outlines general account terms XXXX. However, providing a generic agreement does not establish that I personally agreed to those terms. You must provide : The version of the agreement in effect on the date of application. Proof that I electronically accepted that version. The digital consent trail. 10. Formal Demands Accordingly, I formally demand : Complete copy of original applications ( both accounts ). Full IP/device submission logs. Authentication audit trail. Complete payment source documentation. Full call recordings with metadata. Internal fraud investigation file. Proof of settlement authorization. Immediate cessation of reporting pending reinvestigation. If you can not produce this documentation, then you must : Permanently delete the tradelines. Instruct XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX to remove them. Provide written confirmation of deletion. 11. Reservation of Rights I reserve all rights under : Fair Credit Reporting Act Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( if applicable ) Virginia law ( as referenced in your agreement ) XXXX Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ( E-SIGN ) If inaccurate reporting continues without proper evidentiary support, I will pursue all remedies available. Conclusion Capital Ones XX/XX/XXXXXXXX letter XXXX relies on internal conclusions rather than competent documentary evidence. I do not recognize these accounts as mine. I dispute liability in full. I demand proper verification or deletion. Until legally sufficient proof is produced, continued reporting is improper and damaging. I expect a substantive response within 30 days.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation