Consumer complaint received 2026-01-02 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:
I am disputing a charge in the amount of approximately {$4800.00} for roofing services performed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The work was defective at the time it was performed and did not conform to industry standards or the agreed-upon service. The contractor installed asphalt shingles on a low-slope roof that does not meet minimum manufacturer or building code pitch requirements for shingles. Multiple independent contractors later confirmed that the installation was improper and that a rubber roofing system should have been used. As a result of the improper installation, the roof began leaking shortly after completion under normal conditions. I attempted multiple times to contact the contractor to address the defective work, but the contractor was unresponsive and did not provide remediation. I submitted a dispute to Capital One upon discovering and confirming the defect. Capital One initially issued a provisional credit for the disputed amount. However, on or about XX/XX/2025 Capital One reversed the provisional credit and reapplied the charge to my account. I contacted Capital One by phone and was verbally informed that the dispute was denied based on an asserted 120-day internal policy. I was not provided with a written denial or a written explanation addressing the Fair Credit Billing Act provisions related to nonconforming or defective services. The only explanation provided was verbal. I believe the charge qualifies as a billing error under the Fair Credit Billing Act because the services were not delivered as agreed and the defect was not immediately discoverable at the time of installation. I am requesting that Capital One properly review this dispute in compliance with applicable federal law and provide a written explanation of its decision. 

Update from original case # XXXX I am uploading five separate letters from Capital One regarding the same dispute Capitol One ( Case Number : XXXX ), all dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 
These letters contain multiple, conflicting explanations for denying and closing my dispute regarding a {$23000.00} charge from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX  ), including : Statements that the dispute was denied solely because the 60-day timeframe had expired Statements that Capital One opened an investigation, requested documentation, received my response, and evaluated the merits Statements that my documentation was insufficient, without identifying what information was missing or providing an opportunity to cure Confirmation that Capital One previously issued a provisional credit of {$4800.00}, followed by reapplication of the charge These explanations are mutually exclusive. A dispute can not simultaneously be time-barred and fully investigated on the merits. The issuance of provisional credit further confirms that the dispute was accepted for review. 
Capital One failed to clearly communicate required documentation, failed to identify any alleged deficiencies, and issued multiple inconsistent closure notices for the same case. At no point was I provided a clear, reasonable opportunity to supplement my submission. 
I am requesting CFPB review of Capital Ones dispute handling practices, including whether a reasonable and good-faith investigation was conducted and whether the dispute was improperly denied through inconsistent or automated processes rather than a substantive review.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation