Consumer complaint received 2026-03-26 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Closing your account — Company closed your account
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
b'On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I submitted a formal written billing error notice to Capital One pursuant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX via XXXX Priority Mail Signature Confirmation, Tracking No. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the XXXX address printed on my statement: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX UT XXXX USPS tracking confirms arrival at the XXXX XXXX XXXX UT XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX PM. Capital One assigned Case Number XXXX,\nconfirming receipt and processing of the notice.\n\nTHE BILLING ERROR NOTICE\n\nThe notice identified the following specific computational errors\non my XXXX XXXX XXXX statement under XXXX XXXX XXXX(b)(5):\n\n (1) Interest Charge on Purchases $XXXX: The Cardmember\n Agreement states the APR is XXXX% (Prime + XXXX%), but\n the statement reflects XXXX% a discrepancy requiring\n verification of the Prime Rate used, the daily periodic\n rate, the Average Daily Balance of $XXXX for all XXXX\n days, and the arithmetic producing the $XXXX charge.\n\n (2) Interest Charge on Cash Advances $XXXX Assessed at\n XXXX% APR on an Average Daily Balance of XXXX over\n XXXX days. Daily balance verification and arithmetic\n confirmation requested.\n\n (3) Past Due Fee $XXXX: Verification of the minimum\n payment calculation that triggered the fee and\n confirmation it does not exceed the minimum payment due\n under XXXX XXXX XXXX(l) aXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(b).\n\n (4) Full New Balance $XXXX: Disputed as incorporating\n XXXX compounding the above errors. Full accounting XXXX\n recalculation requested.\n\nTHE FORMATTING VIOLATION THAT CAUSED THE MISINTERPRETATION\n\nThe billing error notice also raised a question I was entitled\nto ask: which party is bound by each provision in the statement\nand Customer Agreement? I raised this because Capital One\'s own\nformatting created a genuine and documentable ambiguity.\n\nA. The Formatting Problem: Bold XXXX Conspicuous Applied Selectively\n\nWhen I reviewed the XXXX XXXX XXXX periodic statement and the Cardmember Agreement, I encountered the following consistent formatting pattern:\n\nPROVISIONS PRESENTED IN BOLD, CAPITALIZED HEADERS:\n - "LATE PAYMENT WARNING: If we do not receive your minimum\n payment by the date listed above, you may have to pay a\n late fee of up to $XXXX XXXX your APRs may be increased\n up XXXX the Penalty APR of XXXX%."\n - "MINIMUM PAYMENT WARNING: If you make only the minimum\n payment each period, you will pay more in interest XXXX\n it will take you longer XXXX pay off your balance."\n - Penalty APR disclosure\n - Over-limit notification\n - Account closure warning\n\nPROVISIONS PRESENTED IN STANDARD BODY TEXT:\n - The interest calculation methodology (Average Daily\n Balance method including new transactions)\n - The daily periodic rate derivation formula\n - The minimum payment calculation formula\n - The balance computation method\n - The conditions and formulas under which fees are assessed\n - The identification of the obligor and the party bound by\n each payment obligation\n\nThis is not a neutral formatting choice. Capital One systematically applied bold, conspicuous formatting XXXX its own enforcement XXXX penalty rights, while leaving the\nobligation provisions that determine what is owed and to whom in undifferentiated body text.\n\nB. Why This Formatting ViolateXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a)(1)\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX(a) requires that all XXXX disclosures be made "clearly XXXX conspicuously." XXXX XXXX XXXX(a)(1) imposes this same mandatory standard on every open-end credit account disclosure, including periodic statements XXXX the\naccount agreement.\n\nUnder XXXX XXXX(b)(10), a term is "conspicuous" when it is so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against whom it is XXXX operate ought XXXX have noticed it. Conspicuousness is measured with reference XXXX the party against whom the term is to operate not the party that drafted it.\n\nCapital One\'s statement XXXX Customer Agreement present XXXX categories of provisions using XXXX distinct formatting treatments yet the document does not identify which party each formatting treatment is intended XXXX address, nor does it clarify which provisions operate against which party.\n\nThe document does not explain whether the bold, capitalized provisions operate against the account holder, against Capital One, or against some other party XXXX the agreement. It does not explain whether the body text provisions operate against the\nsame party as the bold provisions or against a different party. The formatting distinction itself suggests that different provisions are directed at different parties but the agreement provides no clarification as to which party each provision is intended to bind.\n\nWhere a document applies conspicuous formatting selectively across its provisions without identifying which party each provision operates against, it fails to establish\nconspicuousness as XXXX any party because a reasonable person reviewing the document cannot determine, from the document itself, which provisions are directed at them and which are directed at another party to the agreement. This failure to identify the operative party for each provision is the ambiguity that produced the misinterpretation in XXXX XXXX of my original notice.\n\nC. How Capital One\'s Formatting Produced XXXX XXXX\n\nCapital One\'s statement XXXX Customer Agreement present XXXX categories of provisions in XXXX distinct formatting treatments (possibly more) yet nowhere does the document identify which party each formatting category is intended XXXX address, which party each provision operates against, or whether multiple parties XXXX the agreement are bound by different provisions. The formatting distinction itself suggests that different provisions are directed at different parties. The agreement provides no clarification.\n\nIt was this unresolved ambiguity which party is the obligor on each provision, and which provisions each party XXXX the agreement is bound by that produced XXXX XXXX. When a document applies selective conspicuous formatting across its provisions without identifying the operative party for each, a reasonable person cannot determine from the document itself which provisions are directed at them, which provisions are\ndirected at another party, XXXX what role each party is assigned under the agreement. That determination requires clarification that Capital One has not provided in the agreement, on the statement, or in its XXXX XXXX XXXX response.\n\nXXXX XXXX was not a deliberate attempt XXXX present a fraudulent instrument. It was the direct and documentable consequence of a document that, under XXXX XXXX XXXX(a) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a)(1), failed XXXX identify clearly XXXX conspicuously which party each provision operates against leaving open the fundamental question of who the document is addressing and which party is directed XXXX act on each of its provisions.\n\nA creditor that does not comply with federal disclosure formatting requirements bears responsibility for the ambiguity its non-compliant formatting produces. The question of which party each provision in this agreement is intended to bind remains unansweredXXXX XXXX XXXX is withdrawn. That question is not.\n\nCAPITAL ONE\'S RESPONSE: A FORM LETTER AND AN ACCOUNT CLOSURE\n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX days after my letter arrived at the XXXX XXXX XXXXy facility Capital One responded with a XXXX paragraph (Case No. 260319192527926):\n\n "Thank you for contacting us about your XXXX XXXX\n Card. We are unable XXXX fulfill your request through\n written correspondence. If you contact the number\n indicated below, an agent will be happy to assist you\n with your request XXXX provide assistance."\n\nThis response:\n - Does not constitute written acknowledgment of a federal\n billing error notice as required by XXXX XXXX XXXX(c)(1)\n - Does not investigate or address a single billing error\n as required by XXXX XXXX XXXXc)(2)\n - Explicitly refuses XXXX respond in writing contradicting\n both Regulation XXXX and Capital One\'s own Billing Rights\n Summary, which states: "We will notify you in writing\n within XXXX days of our receipt of your letter"\n - Does not address the clearly XXXX conspicuous formatting\n question at all the very violation that caused the\n misinterpretation in my original notice\n\nThe following day XXXX XXXX XXXX Capital One closed the account. My credit monitoring reflects: "Account closed by credit grantor" reported to both Equifax and TransUnion.\n\nAt the time of closure:\n - XXXX% on-time payment history, XXXX late payments at\n XXXX days\n - Current payment status, $XXXX past due\n - Every billing error I raised: unanswered\n - Every disclosure question I asked: unanswered\n - No written explanation of any kind provided\n\nCapital One closed this account without answering a single XXXX of my questions while a pending federal billing error notice remained unresolved, and while the Regulation XXXX formatting violation that produced the misinterpretation in my original notice had not been acknowledged or addressed.\n\nNot one billing error was investigated. Not XXXX disclosure question was answered. Not XXXX written explanation was provided. Capital One\'s only action after receiving a formal,\ntimely, federally protected billing error notice was XXXX refuse written correspondence XXXX close the account the next day.\n\nSPECIFIC VIOLATIONS ALLEGED\n\XXXX. VIOLATION OF XXXX XXXX XXXX(c)(1)\n Failure to provide written acknowledgment of a billing error\n notice within XXXX days of receipt in direct contradiction\n of Capital One\'s own Billing Rights Summary.\n\n2. VIOLATION OF XXXX XXXX XXXX(c)(2)\n Failure XXXX investigate identified billing errors XXXX provide\n a written explanation with documentary evidence within XXXX\n billing cycles not to exceed XXXX days. Not one billing error\n was addressed.\n\XXXX. VIOLATION OF XXXX XXXX XXXX(a) / XXXX XXXX XXXXa)(1)\n Failure XXXX make required disclosures clearly XXXX\n conspicuously. Capital One\'s statement XXXX Customer Agreement\n present XXXX categories of provisions in XXXX distinct\n formatting treatments without identifying which party each\n provision operates against creating unresolved ambiguity\n as to which party is bound by each provision, in violation\n of the clearly XXXX conspicuous standard XXXX XXXX XXXX(b)(10). This violation directly produced the\n misinterpretation in XXXX XXXX of my original notice.\n\XXXX. ACCOUNT CLOSED WITHOUT EXPLANATION OR RESOLUTION\n Capital One closed the account XXXX day after refusing to\n respond in writing, while every billing error and every\n disclosure question raised in the billing error notice\n remained unanswered. The account had a XXXX% on-time payment\n history, $XXXX past due, XXXX Current status at the time of\n closure. No written explanation sufficient XXXX justify this\n closure has been provided.'

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation