Product: Mortgage

Peoples United Bank ( Peoples ) was the originator of my mortgage loan, and since the origination in XX/XX/XXXX, my XXXX  has maintained the same master insurance coverage. At the time of the origination, People 's reviewed the XXXX XXXX insurance coverage and was satisfied. Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes ( CGS ), specifically CGS 47-255 ( a ), any XXXX master policy in Connecitcut must cover all betterments and improvements installed by unit owners, unless a certain exceptions apply. The XXXX XXXX insurance agent has also issued a walls in letter stating that the master policy covers the buildings and units to their original specifications as well as any additional installations. I had no incidents for the two years when the mortgage was held by People 's. M & T Bank ( M & T ) took over People 's in XXXX, and send me a notice regarding insurance, and I personally submitted a copy of my XXXX XXXX master policy at a local M & T branch. Over a year later in XX/XX/XXXX, I received another letter from M & T, mistakenly claiming that my XXXX  master policy did not contain walls in coverage and advising me to purchase additional insurance. I purchased an XXXX unit owner insurance at the behest of M & T, wasting hundreds of dollars. I was even more surprised to receive further letters dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX demanding that I pay {$91.00} and {$2000.00}, respectively, for allegedly allowing my XXXX insurance to laspe during a historical period from XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX. Neither People 's nor M & T had never informed me that XXXX insurance was required until XX/XX/XXXX. 

First, as explained above, my XXXX  master policy pursuant to Connecticut state laws and in fact does include walls in coverage. Second, even if Peoples had erred in the origination and my XXXX  master policy in fact had not included walls in coverage, M & T, as successor to Peoples, should bear the cost of Peoples failure in due diligence. There is no basis in law or equity for a bank to demand its customers pay for the banks own mistakes. Third, pursuant to 12 CFR Part 1024, mortgage servicer may only bill mortgagors for a bona fide and reasonable charge in connection with force-placed insurance. A bona fide and reasonable charge is a charge for a service actually performed that bears a reasonable relationship to the servicer 's cost of providing the service. M & T 's demand for over {$2100.00} for a condominium owner 's insurance, covering a period of less than a year and duplicating coverage already provided by a master policy, exceeds the market rate for such insurance by no less than tenfold, amounting to over {$7.00} per day, and is the polar opposite of bona fide and reasonable. Fourth, if my XXXX XXXX master policy had not included 'walls in " coverage, M & T should have promptly notified me of this fact in XXXX, giving me a reasonable opportunity to address the problem. Waiting over a year to provide notification about an alleged historical problem, at a point when it is impossible for a customer to obtain retroactive insurance coverage at a reasonable price, combined with an arbitrary charge that is completely out of proportion with market price is akin to extortion and reeks of racketeering.

Due to the above reasons, I believe M & T 's actions are outrageous, illegal, deceptive and extortionary. I urge CFPB to protect consumers ' interests by launching an investigation into M & T 's busines practices after its merger with People 's.