Consumer complaint received 2026-04-13 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
Capital One Case Number : XXXX Account Type : XXXX XXXX Card Disputed Transaction : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | {$3700.00} | XX/XX/XXXXXXXX OVERVIEW I am filing this complaint against Capital One , National Association for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of a billing dispute as required under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), 15 U.S.C. 1666, and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026.13. Capital One closed my dispute case ( No. XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX, stating in their closure letter that my response lacks ALL of the previously requested information a statement that is demonstrably false. I submitted a comprehensive seven-exhibit documentation package directly responding to every item Capital One specified. Capital Ones failure to properly consider that evidence and their issuance of a factually inaccurate closure statement constitutes a violation of their obligations under federal law. BACKGROUND : THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX charged {$3700.00} to my Capital One XXXX card ( XXXX ending in XXXX ) under Order # XXXX for multi-year XXXX XXXX license renewals and add-on services. This charge occurred while my business ( XXXX, XXXX ) was closed for the holidays from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. I contacted XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX within their own published 30-day annual plan refund window. XXXX own refund department issued an official written email on XX/XX/XXXX formally approving Out-of-Policy Refund case XXXX. A XXXX support agent confirmed the same day that the refund had been initiated and was processing. No refund was ever issued. I filed a chargeback dispute with Capital One on XX/XX/XXXX. CAPITAL ONES INVESTIGATION FAILURES Failure 1 : Capital One accepted XXXX chargeback response without adequately weighing contradictory evidence already in the file. XXXX submitted a chargeback response to Capital One claiming services were as described and received in good condition. However, XXXX own XXXX Resolve Online questionnaire which Capital One had in their possession as part of the chargeback file contained the following statement : They agreed to a refund but never refunded of XXXX cents and they never issued it. This is a direct admission by XXXX, within their own submission to Capital Ones dispute system, that they agreed to a refund and did not issue it. A reasonable investigation would have identified this internal contradiction within XXXX own filing and weighed it accordingly. Capital One does not appear to have done so. Failure 2 : Capital Ones XX/XX/XXXXXXXX letter requested specific documentation. I provided all of it. Capital Ones XX/XX/XXXXXXXX closure letter falsely states the response lacks ALL of the previously requested information. Capital Ones XX/XX/XXXXXXXX letter requested the following documentation : A copy of the sales invoice or purchase agreement, including evidence of how the service differed from what was received. A statement including the number of times the merchant tried to correct the problem and how the cardholder tried to resolve the dispute. Proof of canceled services or returned merchandise. A refund voucher or other documentation supporting a claim that a credit is due. In response, I submitted a signed, dated formal rebuttal letter with the following seven labeled exhibits directly addressing each requested item : Exhibit A : XXXX invoice showing all charged line items and multi-year terms directly responsive to the invoice/purchase agreement request. Exhibit B : XXXX support chat transcript ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) with timestamped agent statements confirming XXXX, refund initiated, and services removed directly responsive to the merchant correction attempts request. Exhibit C : XXXX account screenshot ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) showing disputed services still active despite confirmed removal directly responsive to the canceled services request. Exhibit D : XXXX own chargeback response submitted to Capital One, including the XXXX questionnaire admission that they agreed to a refund and never issued it. Exhibit E : Official written email from XXXX Refund Request Services department ( XXXX ) dated XX/XX/XXXX at XXXXXXXX XXXX formally confirming partial approval of XXXX directly responsive to the refund voucher / documentation of credit due request. Exhibit F : Chronological Statement of Events a full documented timeline directly responsive to the merchant correction history request. Exhibit G : XXXX emails dated XX/XX/XXXX showing payment cancellation notice and domain removal confirmation, demonstrating XXXX removed paid services without issuing any refund after the chargeback was filed. XXXX : Exhibit E alone an official written email from XXXX own refund department confirming refund approval is precisely the type of refund voucher or other documentation supporting a claim that a credit is due that Capital One specifically requested. Capital Ones statement that my response lacks ALL of the previously requested information is factually inaccurate and suggests this documentation was either not reviewed or not properly considered. Failure 3 : Capital Ones closure statement is factually inaccurate and suggests the submitted documentation was not meaningfully reviewed. Capital Ones XX/XX/XXXXXXXX closure letter states the response lacks ALL of the previously requested information. The word all indicates a total absence of responsive documentation. This is contradicted by the fact that seven labeled exhibits were submitted, each directly mapped to Capital Ones stated documentation requirements, including a written refund approval from the merchants own refund department. Under the FCBA and Regulation Z, Capital One is required to : Acknowledge billing dispute correspondence within 30 days. Conduct a reasonable investigation of the dispute within two billing cycles ( not to exceed 90 days ). Provide the cardholder with a written explanation of its findings if it determines the bill is correct. Not close a dispute based on a merchants response when that same merchants own submitted documentation contains admissions that contradict their defense. A closure letter stating documentation lacks ALL requested items when seven exhibits were submitted including a written merchant refund approval directly matching the requested refund voucher category does not reflect a reasonable investigation. TIMELINE OF CAPITAL ONES HANDLING OF THIS DISPUTE XX/XX/XXXXXXXX : Dispute filed with Capital One for {$3500.00} with supporting documentation. XX/XX/XXXXXXXX : Capital One issues letter stating XXXX claimed services were as described. Case temporarily closed. Capital One requests additional documentation by XX/XX/XXXXXXXX and specifies four categories of supporting evidence needed. XX/XX/XXXXXXXX : Full rebuttal package submitted to Capital One via secure upload, including seven labeled exhibits directly addressing all four requested documentation categories. Package included XXXX own written refund approval email, timestamped chat transcripts, XXXX own XXXX questionnaire admission, active services screenshots, domain removal emails, and full chronological timeline. Disputed amount updated to full {$3700.00} due to XXXX removal of paid domain services without refund. XX/XX/XXXXXXXX : Capital One issues closure letter stating response lacks ALL of the previously requested information and closes the case. No explanation of what specifically was missing or insufficient. No analysis of XXXX own contradictory admissions in the XXXX questionnaire. NOTE ON TIMING : Capital Ones XX/XX/XXXXXXXX deadline had not yet passed when they issued the XX/XX/XXXX closure letter. The documentation was submitted on XX/XX/XXXX eleven days before the deadline Capital One themselves set. Closing the case on XX/XX/XXXX with a finding that documentation was lacking, without providing any specific explanation of what was insufficient, does not reflect a good-faith investigation. LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS COMPLAINT The Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ) impose specific obligations on credit card issuers when a cardholder submits a billing dispute. These include the obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation before determining whether a disputed charge is valid. Capital Ones failure to meaningfully review the submitted documentation including a written refund approval from the merchants own refund department and the merchants own XXXX admission that they agreed to a refund and never issued it and their issuance of a factually inaccurate closure statement asserting total absence of documentation, raises serious questions about whether Capital One met its FCBA obligations in this matter.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation