Consumer complaint received 2023-09-19
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: MD
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Sub-issue: Negative impact of inaccurate appraisal

Complaint:
The attached includes additional information pertaining to the discriminatory complaint of lending with M & T bank. This process started back in XX/XX/XXXX, and we communicatedwithAssistant Vice President, XXXX XXXX of the XXXX Maryland location. From the beginning, XXXX was eager to gain our businessand asked us to fax documents in lieu of XXXX which the majority of major financial institutions use. My husband and I are not new homeownersand have ownedproperty since XXXX. We both questioned the use of wet signatures on documentsmultiple times but was informed it was absolutelynecessary. 

XXXX communicated with us aggressivelyup until the appraisal. During the appraisal process the communication changed abruptly and my husband and I sent a letter of concern regarding the lack of communicationand consistency from thispoint forward. 

After receivingthe appraisal and contacting the appraiser to discuss via phone, it was more evident that there were discriminatorypractices. The appraiser, XXXX XXXX indicated on the report a comment regarding the value of the homes in XXXX being less desirable. Upon speaking with her on XX/XX/XXXX, she commented that the schools in the district of the comps pulled were of a better, more desirable quality. We asked her which district she was referring to and she said XXXX XXXX, MD. To which we replied, the home site that was appraised was in XXXX XXXX, MD and she repeated the comment that the XXXX, MD homes were in a more desirable neighborhood with better schools. Pressing the matter further, we asked her to confirm how she knew the schools were more desirable and we didn'treceive a response. 
We communicated this information to VP XXXX XXXX verbally and also sent an email indicating that we dispute the appraisal. 

After a week or so, XXXX indicated that his manager would not allow for another appraisal even though the comments seemed " insensitive '' We were DENIED the opportunity to seek a second appraisal and M & T lowered the loan amount based on the appraised value. 

Another week later, VP XXXX XXXX indicatedthat we needed to seek a bridge loan to make up the difference in the loan value that M & T would not lend. He encouraged us to use M & T, but we went with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as that is who the mortgage is serviced with now. Upon notifying XXXX of the plan to use XXXX XXXX, we received a response from him that he had already notified underwriting of our intent and we were all set on their end aside for verification of assets. At no time did XXXX or the underwriter inform us that there was any concern with the loan. We pressed XXXX multiple times via email and through phone calls about the status of the loan and the need for a conditional approval, as XXXX XXXX had already provided one. 

The underwriting team then contacts the selected builder of our home and requests that the paving of the driveway be removed from the plan as it is outside the scope of the work performed. The builder confirmed the paving of the driveway was in fact a part of the plan and corresponded to the lot in question per the approved plans from XXXX XXXX planning and zoning. 

After which XXXX informed us, the builder REFUSED to comply with their demand to itemize the site work and the loan would be denied. I asked XXXX why he was referencing site work, and the response was because your builder REFUSED to comply, so we have no way to know how much is on the lot. This is an untrue statement and corresponds to other untrue statements made to my husband and I throughoutthe lending process. VP XXXX XXXX and his team misled and discriminated against my husband and I by refusing to seek an alternate appraisal and then making up a scenario for the denial that is not factual. The funds we received from XXXX XXXX was the delta of what was decreasedwith the loan amount and in the change of circumstance package. 

Further the 10-day pending notification itemizedthe requirements needed for the loan to be approved. At no time or point in time, did anyone inform us that the paving of the driveway or sitework needed to be removed. This was concocted after we began questioning the level of customer service received and inconsistent communication because of our race. 

I have additional details and emails for reference that I would like to submit as part of this investigation. I believe others are most likely being discriminatedon with excellent credit, great income and sufficient assets.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation