Consumer complaint received 2026-04-14 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, a debit card transaction of {$96.00} was authorized for a liquid CPU cooler. Although the merchant provided a tracking number indicating delivery on XX/XX/XXXX, the item was never received at the delivery location.A formal dispute was initiated with the financial institution after several failed attempts to resolve the issue directly with the merchant. During the investigation, the merchant provided evidence to the bank that actually supported the claim for a refund. Specifically, on XX/XX/XXXX, a customer care escalation was sent to the third-party seller stating that a refund " needs to be sent to the customer 's original payment method '' and that the merchant might " proactively refund the customer '' if the seller did not respond within 48 hours. Furthermore, the seller explicitly stated in writing that if a carrier investigation could not locate the package, a " full refund will be issued '' .Despite the presence of these written admissions of liability and promises of credit within the merchant 's own evidence packet, the financial institution has denied the dispute twice. On XX/XX/XXXX, a merchant representative confirmed during a recorded call that a refund request had been submitted and should be received within 48 hours.This complaint is filed under Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) regarding a billing error. The financial institution has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation by ignoring the merchants documented admission that a refund is due. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the failure to honor a promised credit constitutes a billing error that the bank is obligated to correct. I am requesting a permanent restoration of the {$96.00} to my account based on the merchants own evidence of an unfulfilled refund promise.FORMAL REBUTTAL & STATEMENT OF FACT TO : Capital One XXXX Department Regarding Claim : XXXX for $ XXXXMerchant : Walmart XXXX XXXX Dispute Type : Credit Promised but Not Received / Goods Not Received I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT I am formally requesting a reinvestigation of the aforementioned claim. The previous denial was based on a tracking number provided by the merchant. However, the merchants own internal records ( provided in the claim documents ) and recorded transcripts of our communications prove that the merchant admitted the delivery failed, admitted the seller was at fault, and explicitly promised a refund that was never issued.The merchant is attempting to engage in a " liability loop '' where Walmart points to the third-party seller, the seller points to the carrier ( XXXX ), and the carrier points to a GPS scanwhile ignoring the fact that the Merchant of Record ( Walmart ) has already legally admitted fault. II. REBUTTAL OF MERCHANT EVIDENCE. The evidence provided by the merchant is legally insufficient to deny this claim for the following reasons : Failure of Proof of Possession : The XXXX log provided by the merchant shows a " Front Door '' scan. Under UCC 2-509, the risk of loss in a consumer contract remains with the seller until the goods are duly tendered to the buyer. A tracking scan is not " Proof of Possession ''. No photo or signature was provided to prove that I ever received the item.Internal Admission of Liability : On Page 11 of the merchants own evidence PDF, Walmarts internal escalation team states : " ... a refund needs to be sent to the customer 's original payment method... If there has been no reply... Walmart may proactively refund the customer ''. This proves that Walmarts internal investigation already determined I was owed a refund, contradicting the defense they provided to Capital One.The Sellers Conditional Promise : On Page 10 of the evidence PDF, the seller ( XXXX ) states : " ... if they are unable to locate it [ the package ], a full refund will be issued ''. The package was never located ; therefore, the merchant is contractually bound by their own written policy to issue the refund.III. EVIDENCE OF PROMISED CREDIT ( TRANSCRIPT DATA ) I am submitting a transcript of a call with Walmart, where the agent states : " I submitted the request for you to get a refund, and you should receive an email regarding the refund within 48 hours ''. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Regulation E ), a " billing error '' includes the merchant 's failure to properly credit a return to the consumer 's account. Because the merchant promised a credit to resolve a failed delivery and then failed to issue that credit, a billing error has occurred. IV. APPLICABLE LAW : Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ( CSPA ) : Under Ohio law, it is an unfair and deceptive act for a supplier to represent that a refund will be provided and then fail to provide it.Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) 2-509 : The merchant bears the risk of loss for goods in transit until they are actually received by the consumer. A mere " delivered '' scan does not shift the risk of loss to the consumer if the consumer asserts non-receipt.Promissory Estoppel : The merchant made an unambiguous promise of a refund. I relied on that promise to my detriment, and the merchant is legally barred from rescinding that promise.V. CONCLUSION The merchant is attempting to " kick the can down the road '' by citing a tracking number that their own internal team has already deemed insufficient for a successful delivery. Since the merchant has admitted in writing and verbally that I am owed a refund, I request that Capital One honor the merchants own admission of liability and reverse the charge.Declaration : I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.Signed : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation