Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 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: WI

Complaint narrative:
I disputed a total of {$7500.00} in charges on my Capital One credit card for services from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( {$7000.00} initial charge plus {$500.00} later added for the initial deposit ). The dispute was filed under XXXX  Reason Code XXXX Services Not as Described. 

The merchant advertised that every nanny was hand-selected, qualified, and vetted through a XXXX Screening Process requiring XXXX professional childcare references before presentation to families. The full vetting process is the service that I paid for. A partially completed vetting process defeats the purpose of the service, since the value lies in the assurance that candidates have been fully screened and verified before being introduced. 

In reality, the candidate introduced to me on XX/XX/year> included only XXXX reference letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX other reference letters were created or obtained later, XXXX dated XX/XX/year> and another undated, after I had already extended an offer on XX/XX/year> with the reasonable belief that the merchant had already completed its advertised vetting process and verified all three references. These dates make it chronologically impossible for the agencys promised three-reference screening process to have been completed at the time of presentation. Because XXXX XXXX XXXX website stated that every candidate was required to submit XXXX professional childcare references directly to the agency as part of its internal screening process, I reasonably believed the agency had already obtained and verified all three references before introducing the candidate. When the XX/XX/year> email included only XXXX visible reference letter, I did not question it, assuming the remaining references were already on file with the agency as part of its backend vetting. 

The evidence includes a written admission from the merchants attorney, who stated : You chose to hire XXXX XXXX based on the information you received Instead, you personally interviewed her and offered her the position. This statement confirms that the merchant did not vet the candidate before the hiring decision, contradicting their own advertised process and even after assuring me that I was fine to move forward. Had the merchant told me ahead of time that they had not completed the vetting process, I would not have hired the candidate or paid for the service. 

A merchant should not be permitted to engage in a bait-and-switch advertising a fully vetted service, failing to complete the vetting, admitting it, and still being allowed to keep the funds. 

Capital One closed my dispute after the merchant submitted an invoice as proof of service. This invoice only reflected the amount charged. It did not provide any evidence that even partial services had been performed, as would be required to serve as proof of service delivery. I asked Capital One to request actual proof from the merchant showing that the vetting service had been performed, but Capital One refused. Capital Ones review relied only on a billing document and ignored clear evidence that the merchants core service full pre-placement vetting was not performed as advertised.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation