Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief
Company: PNC Bank N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a mortgage-servicing complaint against PNC Bank N.A . because PNC mishandled my disaster forbearance, XXXX mortgage relief, and loss mitigation review after my home was destroyed in the XXXX XXXX. The core issue is that PNC received and applied 12 months of XXXX mortgage payments while we remained displaced and in wildfire recovery, but did not provide a disaster-appropriate path when forbearance ended. Instead of offering additional forbearance, payment deferral to the end of the loan, or another non-lump-sum retention option, PNC required a hardship application, allowed several additional months of payments to accrue during review, denied retention options, moved the loan toward liquidation, demanded a multi-month lump-sum payment to avoid foreclosure activity, and then denied my appeal. This all occurred while PNC was holding restricted insurance/loss draft funds specifically for rebuilding the property. We are not abandoning the home ; we are actively trying to rebuild and preserve it. We were current on our loan when we entered disaster-related forbearance in XX/XX/XXXX. Before the 12 months of disaster forbearance concluded, PNC discussed a deferral option that would move payments to the end of the loan. However, that proposed offer included inaccuracies and issues, including escrow/tax and insurance concerns, and there was a strict acceptance timeline. We also felt pressured by PNC XXXX XXXX representatives who told us we might never receive that offer again. That pressure to accept an inaccurate time-limited offer while we were still in disaster recovery is part of my servicing concern. Because we were still displaced and in the middle of disaster recovery, we chose to continue disaster forbearance rather than accept that offer before the XXXX disaster period had run. PNC ultimately extended forbearance to approximately 13 months. While still displaced and in wildfire recovery, we secured 12 months of mortgage payments through XXXX, paid to PNC in XXXX lump-sum payments. My understanding is that XXXX was intended to provide continued housing stability beyond the initial disaster-forbearance period, because fire survivors can not realistically lose a home, remain displaced, rebuild, and stabilize financially within XXXX year. It was not intended to simply cure the loan so the servicer could move the borrower into a hardship review, liquidation path, and new lump-sum demand. Functionally, PNC treated the XXXX XXXX as a balloon-style cure payment. After applying those funds, PNC did not return to the deferral path, did not offer additional disaster-related forbearance, and did not offer another non-lump-sum retention option. Instead, PNC required a hardship application, characterized our hardship as permanent rather than temporary, denied retention options, and issued a liquidation determination. I believe PNCs handling XXXX be inconsistent with the purpose of disaster mortgage relief, including California wildfire protections such as XXXX XXXX, which I understand prohibits lump-sum/balloon repayment for borrowers who were current when entering disaster forbearance. I also understand Californias wildfire mortgage-relief framework contemplated additional disaster-related forbearance and payment options that do not require lump-sum or balloon repayment. I communicated these concerns repeatedly to PNCs Loss Mitigation team, Early Resolution team, and Executive Client Relations. I explained that our hardship is temporary wildfire displacement and rebuilding disruption, not permanent inability to sustain the loan. I asked for disaster-related forbearance, deferral of arrears to the end of the loan, or another non-lump-sum option. I also asked PNC to provide the specific investor guideline, contractual provision, servicing rule, calculation, or legal authority used to deny all retention options short of liquidation. I was told that investor guidelines are protected. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I learned by phone that my appeal had been denied. On XX/XX/XXXX, I made the disputed multi-month payment under protest to avoid foreclosure escalation and protect my credit and property. I continue to dispute that this payment should have been required. The XXXX payment will come due shortly, and PNC still has not provided a disaster-related forbearance, deferral, or non-lump-sum recovery path. My immediate concern is that PNC XXXX still assess late/default/foreclosure-related fees, report adverse credit, or treat the account negatively because the disputed payment was made XXXX day after the date PNC demanded, even though the XXXX requirement was disputed and my appeal/regulatory complaints were pending.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation