Date Received: 2016-09-10
Issue: Managing the loan or lease
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I refinanced my car, I asked the company would anything change besides the date of the payment and the amount. I was advised no, so I even asked would this have any effect on my gap insurance I was advised no. Well come to find out that was a lie. I got in an accident the care was totaled and the gap I insurance said they would not pay because of me refinancing changed the terms of the original contract. It has been a few years and not M & T bank is calling me saying I owe $ XXXX for the car. When it was totaled out there was n't even that much left in th car I tried expaininf the I was deceived by their company and that the gap should have been added to the new terms but instead they advised me I was still covered. I do not feel I should pay the bases on being lied to. Is there anyone that can help me with this? I asked them how would this effect the gap insurance and they fact that they said it would not effect it and that the car would still be covered if something happens then something happened and the gap would not pay for the outstanding amount.
Company Response:
State: OH
Zip: 43230
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-09-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-09-09
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My property has a foreclosure sale date for XX/XX/XXXX. My servicer is M & T Bank. They rejected me for a loan mod and I have engaged agents to sell my home as a short sale. My agents have continued to provide everything needed for short sale, the only thing left to be done is for the servicer to order an appraisal/valuation to compare it to the value. M & T is refusing to do this, saying that they need more time to upload documents. My agent has ALREADY verified that all documents were recieved, and has previously been told that 48 hours is the upload time, but NOW M & T ( XXXX to be specific ) says it 's a minimum of 5 days. I believe he is stalling in order to send us to foreclosure. We have a GREAT offer on the table and there is NO reason they are refusing to work with us. I do n't know if they think they 'll make money or what?
Company Response:
State: WA
Zip: 98604
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-09-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-09-09
Issue: Problems caused by my funds being low
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My M & T checking account was overdrawn by {$3.00}, M & T assessed me the standard insufficient funds fee of {$38.00}. But then I was charged the another {$38.00} overdraft fee because it was insufficient for five ( 5 ) days. So for the negative {$3.00} balance on my checking account I was charged total fees of {$80.00}. : Not to mention this is supposedly the M & T account for low income persons.
Company Response:
State: DC
Zip: 20011
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-09-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-09-10
Issue: Problems caused by my funds being low
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have a basic checking account with M & T bank, I went to XXXX to pick up some things using my M & T debit card. My balance was XXXX dollars short unbeknownst to me at the time. Nonetheless, in stead of declining my transaction as it should have, it went through despite me explicitly refusing the overdraft feature for my account. I was then assessed {$38.00} for the overdraft fee and an additional {$38.00} for the account being deficient for 5 days. I 've noticed M & T does n't post monies to my account when making deposits on Friday prior to XXXX or XXXX. The entire weekend my deposits within these time frames sit idle and when Monday comes around they post outstanding items first as opposed to deposits to charge fees on accounts with pending deposits that have yet to post with outstanding check or debit card purchases. This has happened to me twice now. I 'm amending case # XXXX and requesting that all monies taken in the name of fees {$80.00} in this instance be returned immediately.
Company Response:
State: DC
Zip: 20011
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-09-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-09-08
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I fell behind on my mortgage, tried forever to modify it. Then it was sold to another bank. Again I have tried to modify it. These banks have n't sent me statements. I have no idea where there balances are coming from. They tell me they do not have to give me anything. I know I am being ripped off. Now on XXXX16 my home of XXXX yrs is being foreclosed and were homeless. I feel like I had no rights. Its wrong how these mortgage lenders treat people.
Company Response:
State: WA
Zip: 98002
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-09-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-09-06
Issue: Problems caused by my funds being low
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Hello, I opened my account with M & T Bank on XXXX XXXX. I have a mortgage with this company as well. I went to a trip to XXXX XXXX recently and use the app " XXXX '' I did not know that I had linked my M & T Bank to the app, and I used the service. I thought I was paying from my XXXX XXXX account. They online banking website had been down for a while so I could not check my balance for M & T bank. When I checked on XX/XX/XXXX, my account had a overdraft balance of {$370.00}. I am being charge XXXX ( so far no sure if they will assets more fees ) overdraft fees at {$38.00} each for transactions as small as {$3.00} the largest {$8.00}. As of today ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I have not received a notice of overdraft. When I opened the account online, I was not ask if I wanted to " opt-in '' to overdraft services. I called M & T Bank to ask for an explanation and for refund of the over {$300.00} dollars in fees I am being charged on fees alone in the meter of 3 days for transactions the added up to {$60.00} dollars. The customer service rep said that there is nothing they can do and that I have to pay the fees. This is a violation of the " H.R. 1261 Overdraft Protection Act of 2013 '' approved by the 113th congress. Specially, SEC 4 " 140B.secition ( i ) OVERDRAFT COVERAGE LIMITS - I should not be charged more than one overdraft fee a month and no more than 6. Also, " the amount of any overdraft coverage fee that a depository institution may assess for paying a transaction shall be reasonable and proportional to the amount of the overdraft '' M & T bank is essentially trying to steal my money by charging me all of this unfair fees and in violation of the " Overdraft Protection Act of 2013 '' Please any help you can provide will be appreciated. I am not willing to pay the abusing and excessive fees that M & T bank is trying to make me pay. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions
Company Response:
State: VA
Zip: 223XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-09-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-09-02
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Beginning XXXX, 2009, a cadre of financial institutions have improperly posed as the creditor, i.e. the party to whom the mortgage debt is owed, in connection with debt encumbering real property of my estate. After years of litigation, and battling absurd arguments such as, " we can enforce the debt even if we stole it, it 's a bearer instrument under UCC 3, '' it is clear that none of the financial institutions own or have a right to enforce the debt instruments. The XXXX has now finally determined that the Note at issue is not negotiable instrument, and therefore not subject to UCC 3, and thus the institutions can not enforce the debt, " even if they stole it. '' After changing the identify of the creditor numerous times, the institutions most recently asserted the owner of the debt is, " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Trustee for XXXX XXXX, asserts the right to enforce the Note as the owner of a bearer instrument, '' and then when I proved that was an impossibility, the institutions pivoted to assert the exact opposite, " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Trustee for XXXX XXXX agrees it is not the owner of the Note. '' I have been forced to litigate the institutions ' moving target assertions for over XXXX years. The servicing institutions involved ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), assert they are attempting to enforce the debt on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Indenture Trustee for XXXX XXXX ( BONYM ), with XXXX asserting it is attempting to collect the debt on behalf of " XXXX certificate holders '' of XXXX XXXX. However during their deposition testimony, XXXX admitted it has no idea who the XXXX certificate holders are or how they are paid. Contradicting this testimony, are the documents filed with the SEC in connection with XXXX establishing that the indenture trustee is to certify with its signature, each certificate issued, and is responsible for paying the certificate holders. If XXXX does not know who the certificate holders are then they are not collecting payments from me on behalf of the certificate holders of XXXX XXXX. Finally, during the recent summary adjudication proceedings, the servicing institutions and XXXX now assert that Wilmington Trust Corporation is the owner of the instruments as the Owner Trustee of XXXX XXXX ( Wilmington ). However Wilmington and its key executives are under criminal indictment for their conduct in connection with mortgage backed securities and did not assert a claim against my estate. Further, the documents filed with the SEC in connection with XXXX XXXX establish that the owner trustee, Wilmington, is the only party that can engage in litigation in connection with assets of the trust. Its clear that Wilmington, did not, and is not asserting a claim against my estate, that SLS is improperly using the name XXXX XXXX as cover to fraudulently assert a claim against my estate. Defendant 's counsel in the matter, has improperly asserted it is representing all the Defendants in the matter, when their actual client is SLS, in order to collect fees and keep covered the issue that the certificate holders of XXXX XXXX are owed no amounts from me. As this agency is aware, when XXXX XXXX was the servicing agent their conduct was particularly egregious as summarized in the attached communication from me to XXXX XXXX. After the CFPB and FTS consent judgment was issued, XXXX XXXX immediately became XXXX for obvious reasons but continues its deplorable conduct in my case. The overall issue is set out in my attached third amended complaint, which will have to be amended once again now that XXXX 's misrepresentations of ownership were revealed during the summary adjudication proceedings.
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 91302
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-09-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-08-29
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I recently successfully completed a chapter XXXX bankruptcy plan. During my plan, my mortgage company was sold from XXXX XXXX M & T. Since my loan was purchased by M & T, I have had XXXX problem after another. While my bankruptcy was still active, I did n't receive anything other than what was basically a blank statement. Although I continued to make my mortgage payments to them directly, they never reflected my payment, balance, interest or escrow information on my monthly statements. Once my bankruptcy was completed, they dropped off an envelope on my doorstep and the only information on it was a handwritten name of M & T and a phone number. This was my first notice that there was a problem with my mortgage account. It took me two weeks to get a hold of them. When I talked to the asset manager I was told that she did n't see any payments missed on my account, it was probably a clerical error and she would have to request a complete payment history which would take 2 weeks. During this time, I applied to refinance my home. During the underwriting process, my loan was put on hold because M & T reported to the prospective loan company that I was XXXX payments behind. Again, it took me a week to reach someone at M & T. I was told they received the payment history and that I had n't missed any payments with them. Around XXXX, they advised they would have to send the dispute to the escalation department which would take an additional 2 weeks. Within a few days I received a letter from M & T stating that I would have a resolution on XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX I called and they still had no resolution for me. I was told this day after day for several days until I requested it to be escalated to a supervisor. I was then given a firm resolution date of XXXX XXXX. It is now XXXX XXXX and I still do not yet have a resolution. It has been 3 months now since I have been trying to figure this out. I have received XXXX more " doorstep '' notices since the first XXXX with no actual information on them and no information from M & T stating why the status of my account is showing that we are behind. This has ruined my opportunity to refinance my home. I feel that it is a business tactic to either foreclose on my property or keep me from refinancing. It has been very, very difficult to get a hold of them and/or to wait for a return call which rarely comes. It has been more than a reasonable amount of time for them to complete their investigation and explain to me their position on the status of my loan.
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 923XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-08-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-08-26
Issue: Account opening, closing, or management
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Im not able to open an account due to a check I had no idea about. I was young and not thinking about why I would receive a check in the mail. I placed the check in my account and I waited three days like the teller told me before I could remove any funds. After three days I went to the bank to find out that the account was onhold/closed due to a fake check. Ive been trying to resolve this problem for the longest time. I had to cancel my direct deposit and wait for the money that was in the account already to be released to me by check in mail. I currently have a prepaid card that Ive been using since then. Im working on building my credit and hopefully will be buying a house. I cant do any of this if this matter is not resolved. I ask that it be removed off my credit and that I have a second chance. I call XXXX and had the report mailed to me so that I could find out why I cant get an account in my name. I filed bankruptcy in XXXX 2012 it was discharged in XXXX 2012. I believe this was included as well
Company Response:
State: MD
Zip: 21117
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-08-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-08-25
Issue: Managing the loan or lease
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I never received a statement for a payment, when notified I immediately made a payment by phone. Upon completion of making the payment the representive demanded my insurance companies name even after I declined to provide. I was advised my husbands place of employment was called twice in XXXX day via auto dialer reading the mini XXXX via recording to his employer. This call was placed prior to the call on his cell that we answered on the first call from the auto dialer. After I requested a cease and desist and made the payment, both my husband and I received a call with in 20 minutes regarding the account. I was denied copies of the original statements and was denied by XXXX associates to speak with a member of their compliance team.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NY
Zip: 141XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-10-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No