Consumer complaint received 2024-06-28 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
On Friday, XX/XX/XXXX, I filed two disputes with M & T Bank : one for {$4000.00}, disputed because it was paid by other means, and another for {$3500.00}, due to an ATM not dispensing funds. After the standard XXXX business day review period, both claims were denied with the explanation that no error occurred. The handling of the {$4000.00} dispute is particularly troubling as M & T Bank did not contact the merchant or request supporting documents, leaving me puzzled about their conclusion. This failure to contact the merchant or request documentation likely violates XXXX  Section 13.3, which mandates thorough investigation and merchant contact in dispute resolution. Their initial explanation that my account was about to close, which was claimed for 2-3 weeks without action, suggests an inadequate or rushed investigation due to the supposed account closure. 

Additionally, M & T Bank mishandled a XXXX transaction on XX/XX/XXXX, where a voided {$4000.00} charge remained pending, causing my account to be debited. Despite my explanation that the transaction was declined and funds were promptly returned according to XXXX XXXX, M & T Banks response contradicted these facts. This mishandling likely violates XXXX  rules on the timely resolution of disputed transactions ( XXXX Rules and Regulations, Section XXXX ), which require transactions to be promptly resolved once voided or declined. M & T Banks failure to acknowledge errors has resulted in significant inconvenience and financial loss on my part. 

Now for the XXXX  issue, here how M & T bank is wrong : Pending Status Contradiction : M & T Bank stated on XX/XX/year>, that the XXXX  transaction for {$4000.00} was in a pending status on my account. 
Inconsistency : This contradicts the sequence where XXXX confirmed the transaction was declined and voided promptly on the same day. The transaction should not have remained pending after being declined and voided.

Authorization Hold Explanation : M & T Bank referred to their General Deposit Account Agreement stating that an Authorization Hold can be retained for up to three business days. 
Inconsistency : An Authorization Hold is typically applied to transactions awaiting finalization. In this case, since the transaction was declined and voided promptly, the hold should have been released immediately, not left pending for days. 
Response to Compensation Request : M & T Bank denied your request for compensation, stating no bank error occurred. 
Inconsistency : Despite the confusion caused by their mishandling of the transaction and the inconvenience you experienced, they failed to acknowledge their responsibility, which doesnt align with the mishandling of your funds. 

Overall, M & T Banks response fails to address the immediate voiding of the XXXX transaction and the subsequent mishandling of the pending status. Their explanation regarding Authorization Holds and their denial of compensation overlook the confusion and inconvenience caused, suggesting a lack of accountability for their handling of the situation & M & T Banks handling of my disputes failed to comply with XXXX rules on several fronts, including conducting a reasonable investigation, ensuring thoroughness and fairness, maintaining communication, and providing clear justifications for denial. Their actions have caused me significant inconvenience and financial loss, highlighting a failure to follow established dispute resolution protocols.

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