Consumer complaint received 2026-02-02 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was paid
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I dispute the accuracy, completeness, and legal enforceability of the information being furnished regarding the tradeline attributed to M & T Bank. I do not admit this alleged debt is mine and do not admit any obligation is valid. The tradeline is reported as closed/paid while also reflecting a prior severe delinquency status ( e.g., was XXXX days past due / similar delinquency history ). Those fields must be supported by competent business records and field-level furnishing evidence ( Metro XXXX XXXX. If the company can not verify each disputed field with competent documentation, the tradeline must be deleted. 

What happened/ Why Im complaining My consumer report disclosures show a closed M & T Bank tradeline that is presented inconsistently and/or ambiguously across bureaus ( and/or within the payment history/status logic ), including closed/paid wording alongside was XXXX days past due style delinquency history. This combination requires strict verification because adverse delinquency coding and date logic are materially harmful and must be accurate, complete, and verifiable at the field level. 

Disputed issues and data elements XXXX. Identity match / attribution is disputed I dispute that the tradeline is correctly attributed to me and accurately matched to my identity. The company must prove the basis for attribution using competent records. 

XXXX. Standing/ authority is specifically disputed ( core dispute ) I dispute that the entity furnishing this tradeline has proven it is the lawful current owner/creditor with authority to furnish. If the company is acting as a servicer/agent, it must identify the current owner and provide the instrument granting authority for this specific account. 

XXXX. Amount accuracy / accounting is disputed I dispute the accuracy of any amounts historically furnished ( high balance, past due, charge-off amount if any, fees/interest ) and demand a complete ledger and itemization showing how all amounts were calculated. 

XXXX. Status/date/payment-history integrity is disputed ( including XXXX logic ) I dispute the accuracy and completeness of key status and date fields, including : -account status / pay status codes -date opened, date closed, date updated, last payment date -delinquency progression/payment history grid logic -any was 120 days past due coding and the basis for it Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) used for credit reporting and any obsolescence calculations If the company can not support these fields with competent records, they must be corrected or deleted. 

XXXX. Metro 2/ standardized furnishing integrity is disputed ( field-level proof required ) Credit reporting is transmitted using standardized fields commonly referred to as Metro 2 . A closed/paid tradeline with severe delinquency history requires exact field-level accuracy. I demand the bureau-by-bureau Metro 2 field-level furnishing XXXX showing exactly what was transmitted and the basis for each disputed field. 

XXXX. CRA-to-CRA consistency requirement ( reconciliation across bureaus ) The company must reconcile any differences in how this tradeline is presented across the consumer reporting agencies ( status codes, dates, remarks, payment history, dispute indicators, balances/past due ). If the company can not reconcile discrepancies with competent records and Metro 2 XXXX, the tradeline is not verifiable and must be corrected or deleted. 

XXXX. Do not expand reporting This dispute is not permission to begin reporting to additional bureaus or to expand negative reporting as a fix. The remedy for inaccurate or unverifiable information is correction or deletion, not expanded furnishing. 

Dispute coding / remark handling If the company continues furnishing while this tradeline is disputed, dispute handling must be accurate and consistent, including proper dispute notation where required. 

Laws and duties implicated XXXX XXXX XXXX Disputes : 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( requires a reasonable investigation of a direct dispute to a furnisher ). 

XXXX XXXX duties : 15 U.S.C . 1681s-2 ( duty to furnish accurate and complete information ; proper handling of disputed information ; investigation duties after CRA notice XXXX dispute notation where applicable ). 

Documents demanded ( legible copies only no summaries ) A. Contract + identity linkage XXXX. Original application/contract and all governing terms/disclosures for the alleged account. 

XXXX. Records showing the identity match basis used to attribute this tradeline to me ( specific identifiers relied upon ). 

B. Full accounting and timeline proof XXXX ) Complete account history/ledger from opening through closure ( charges, payments, credits, interest, fees, adjustments ). 
XXXX ) Full itemization supporting any reported balances, past-due amounts, and any delinquency history coding. 
XXXX ) Source records supporting XXXX, last payment date, date closed, and the basis for any severe delinquency reporting ( including 120 days past due coding and the related months ). 

XXXX Standing / ownership / transfers XXXX ) Written confirmation of the current owner/creditor of any alleged receivable related to this account. 
XXXX ) If assigned/placed/transferred/serviced : provide chain of title with account-level schedules/identifiers tying this specific account to any transfer ( XXXX ). 
XXXX ) The applicable forward flow agreement ( and amendments/schedules/exhibits/purchase attachments ) governing any sale/assignment pipeline that could include this accounttogether with account-level inclusion proof for this specific account. 
XXXX ) If acting as servicer/agent : the servicing/authorization instrument showing authority to furnish for this account. 

XXXX CRA furnishing proof ( Metro 2 ) + method of verification XXXX ) Bureau-by-bureau furnishing snapshots showing exactly what was transmitted to each CRA ( status codes XXXX balances, past due, DOFD, date updated, remarks/special comment codes, payment history logic, dispute indicators, furnisher identifiers ). 
XXXX ) The Metro 2 field-level data transmitted for this tradeline to each CRA. 
XXXX ) The method of verification used for each disputed field ( records reviewed + department responsible ). 

Harm This adverse tradeline is materially harmful because it affects credit decisions and the accuracy of my consumer file. Reporting that can not be verified with competent records and field-level furnishing proof must be corrected or deleted.

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