Consumer complaint received 2025-09-19 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: FL

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Complaint Capital One Credit Card Dispute Mishandling ( Second Complaint ) Reason for this complaint I am filing this complaint because Capital One Banks handling of my original credit card dispute was unfair, inconsistent, and failed to comply with their legal duties under the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. 

I already submitted a CFPB complaint ( ID XXXX ), which Capital One closed on XX/XX/XXXX by issuing a {$300.00} travel credit. That relief did not address my actual {$4000.00} out-of-pocket loss and appears designed only to let Capital One report my case as Closed with monetary relief while avoiding their obligation to resolve my dispute fairly. 

I believe this justifies a new complaint because Capital Ones XXXX response itself shows new violations : They changed their justification midstream ( first citing merchant receipt, then later airline confirmation ), which is inconsistent and misleading. 
They never provided me with the merchants actual evidence package, only summaries, violating Regulation Z. 
They overstepped their neutral role by contacting the airline directly, even while telling me in writing they can not speak for other financial institutions. 



What Happened ( Timeline ) XX/XX/XXXX Denied boarding at XXXX I held valid XXXX boarding passes and had prepaid baggage through XXXX  app ( XXXX  ). 
Booking confirmation was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Capital One XXXX ( XXXX ). 
XXXX XXXX ( the owning carrier ) confirmed that a waiver code was available to allow rebooking, but only the travel agent XXXX Capital One XXXX XXXX could apply it. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX involvement XXXX XXXX customer service confirmed twice that the waiver could be applied if Capital One XXXX acted XXXX 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX called me back after checking internally and again confirmed the waiver was valid. 

Under XXXX and the XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ), XXXX XXXX was prepared to honor my ticket if Capital One XXXX entered the waiver code. The failure was not with the airline it was with my agent ( Capital One XXXX ). 

XX/XX/XXXX Dispute opened I disputed the charge with Capital One Bank for unused outbound tickets and prepaid baggage. 
Capital One issued a temporary credit. 

XX/XX/XXXX Capital One denial letters XX/XX/XXXX : Ticket dispute denied, stating the merchant provided a receipt ( XXXX Dispute update letters ). 
At the same time, the Capital One app showed I had until XX/XX/XXXX ( tickets ) to submit evidence ( XXXX ). I submitted by that date, but my responses were disregarded. 

XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  evidence ( XXXX Dispute update letter-tickets ( Capital One XXXX  ) XXXX, XXXX ) claimed my ticket was a NO SHOW, while Capital Ones own denial treated it as fully used with baggage. Both can not be true. 

XX/XX/XXXX Capital Ones CFPB response Capital One changed its justification : instead of receipt provided, they told CFPB they had confirmed with the airline no waiver code could be used ( XXXX XXXX XXXX 
If Capital One truly contacted an airline, they never identified which one. Only XXXX XXXX could issue or deny the waiver code. If they contacted XXXX, that would be meaningless, because XXXX could not issue it. 
Earlier in the same response letter, Capital One wrote that I should contact the companies directly because they could not speak for them ( same PDF, XXXX ). Yet they leaned on a vague airline confirmation as the basis for denial. 
They issued a {$300.00} travel credit, which is not a lawful remedy under Regulation Z. 



Why This Was Unfair and Unlawful Capital Ones handling of my disputes failed the standards of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ) : 1 ) 1026.13 ( c ) ( 2 ) : Reasonable investigation Letter ( Capital One Online Portal and letter Dispute resolved customer is responsible XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) : Said the tickets case was closed on XX/XX/XXXX due to a valid merchant response and that my rebuttal lacked all requested information. 
Portal ( XXXX  ) : Still showed I had until XX/XX/XXXX to upload additional documents to continue the tickets dispute. 

This contradiction proves Capital One did not meet the reasonable investigation requirement : they treated the case as closed while their own system showed it remained open, and they never specified what evidence was supposedly missing. 



2 ) 1026.13 ( e ) ( 1 ) : Resolution of provisional credit Instead of making the provisional credit permanent or issuing a denial with merchant evidence, Capital One issued a {$300.00} travel credit ( XXXX XXXX  ).

This is not allowed under Regulation Z, which requires either permanent credit or a lawful written denial with evidence. 
The travel credit was not a refund returned to me it was restricted for use only within Capital One XXXX ( operated by XXXX ). In practice, this kept the funds locked inside Capital Ones own travel affiliate system, rather than restoring my money. 
This maneuver allowed Capital One to report the case as Closed with monetary relief while avoiding a proper resolution of my loss. 



3 ) 1026.13 ( f ) : Merchant evidence What the law requires : If a creditor denies a dispute, it must provide the substance or copies of the merchants evidence so the cardholder can rebut it. 
What Capital One gave me instead : Only summaries ( receipt provided ) in the denial letters ( XXXX Dispute update letters ), not the actual merchant packet. 
What XXXX/Capital One claim they emailed me ( but didnt ) : We sent the email consisting of invoice, booking confirmation reiterating the terms and conditions, applicable restrictions, and the way to connect with XXXX customer service to the customers registered email address immediately after the transaction. 
( XXXX Dispute update letter-tickets ( Capital One Travel ) XXXX, XXXX ) Reality : I received only two emails an itinerary/receipt and a confirmation with airline check-in links and PNRs ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and a Capital One code XXXX XXXX ). Neither contained XXXX contact instructions ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
Irrelevant material in the evidence packet : Page XXXX : Car Rental Booking Terms & Conditions. 
Page XXXX : Capital One XXXX  / Third-Party Terms. 
None of this answers whether my air tickets were used or whether a waiver could be applied. 
XXXX NO SHOW note ( not proof of use ) : XXXX rep spoke with [ customer ] and reconfirmed that there was no extension of the tax as customary cancellation before marked as NO SHOW. 
( XXXX Dispute update letter-tickets ( Capital One Travel ) XXXX, XXXX ) Yet XXXX  later emailed me Time to check in for the return leg ( XXXX ) and Your Flight Was Cancelled. Our Apologies. the next day ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Both contradict the claim of fully used. 
Vague airline confirmation with no source : Capital One told CFPB it confirmed with the airline no waiver code could be used ( XXXX XXXX  ), but never identified which airline. Only XXXX XXXX could issue/deny the waiver ; XXXX could not. 
PNR/confirmation confusion : Capital One codes : XXXX vs XXXX. 
Airline PNRs : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. 
This inconsistency underscores why the real merchant evidence packet not just summaries was required. 



4 ) 1026.13 ( c ) ( 2 ) : Neutrality requirement The law requires the creditor to remain neutral between the cardholder and the merchant-of-record. 
Instead, Capital One substituted airline statements for merchant evidence. In their XXXX CFPB response, they wrote : we confirmed with the airline no waiver code could be used ( XXXX XXXX ). 
They never identified which airline they contacted. Only XXXX XXXX could issue/deny the waiver. If they contacted XXXX, it was irrelevant. 
In the very same letter, they also wrote I should contact the companies directly because they could not speak for them ( same PDF, XXXX ). Yet they still relied on a vague airline confirmation to deny me. 
Their own evidence packet ( XXXX Dispute update letter-tickets ( Capital One XXXX  ) XXXX, XXXX ) shows the NO SHOW status came from a XXXX  agent note, not proof of ticket use which XXXX later emails contradicted. 

By siding with airline notes and its own affiliate XXXX Capital One XXXX XXXX XXXX instead of neutrally weighing the true merchant evidence and my rebuttals, Capital One violated neutrality. 



XXXX ) Misrepresentation Capital Ones statements vs facts : Claimed no waiver code available ( XXXX XXXX XXXX 
Treated tickets as fully used, inconsistent with airline records and their own packet. 
XXXX XXXX confirmation : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX confirmed to me directly that a waiver code could be applied if Capital One XXXX acted XXXX 
XXXX  emails : On XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX emailed me Time to check in and then Your Flight Was Cancelled ( XXXX and XXXX PDFs ). These show my ticket was still active, not fully used. 
XXXX contradictions : Their packet shows both a XXXX  NO SHOW note and Capital One treating it as fully used with baggage. Both can not be true. 



XXXX ) State law FDUTPA ( Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ) FDUTPA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in the conduct of trade or commerce ( Fla. Stat. 501.201 et seq. ). 
Capital Ones actions qualify : Issuing unusable credits instead of refunds. 
Misstating merchant role ( substituting airline statements when Capital One XXXX was merchant of record ). 
Withholding merchant evidence packet, mixing in irrelevant terms ( XXXX Dispute update letter-tickets ( Capital One XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). 


Attachments referenced XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation