Consumer complaint received 2025-12-26 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: PNC Bank N.A.
State: AL

Complaint narrative:
THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE Formal Notice of Continued Procedural Mishandling, Failure to Review Submissions, Improper Duplicate Classification, and Demand for Reopening and Production of Records To Whom It May Concern, I submit this letter to formally document and object to the continued procedural mishandling of my consumer complaints, including indicators that my submissions were not fully reviewed, followed by the improper classification of complaints as duplicates despite the introduction of new material facts and legal issues. 

This correspondence is submitted to preserve the accuracy of the administrative record and to request corrective action consistent with federal law, constitutional due process principles, and CFPB complaint-handling standards. 

1. Indicators of Failure to Review Complaint Submissions During the handling of my complaints, a PNC XXXX XXXX agent instructed me to expect contact from, or remain in communication with, an individual and/or entity : Against whom I had already filed a prior CFPB complaint, and To whom I had already issued a written cease-and-desist directive, both of which were expressly stated in my complaint submissions. 

Had my submissions and complaint history been reviewed in full, such guidance would have conflicted with information already contained in the record. This creates a reasonable inference that my complaints were not substantively reviewed prior to instruction being issued. 

This observation is not presented as an allegation of intent, but as evidence of a procedural failure, not isolated error, inconsistent with CFPB intake and review obligations. 

2. Improper Classification of Complaints as Duplicates Multiple subsequent complaints were later labeled as duplicate despite containing new and material information, including but not limited to : Newly discovered facts concerning defective joint account formation Evidence indicating I was allegedly added as a joint owner while a minor Statements by bank personnel indicating no executed signature or consent exists Branch-level discrepancies and employee-specific conduct Requests for preservation of records ( litigation hold ) Legal reframing from identity theft alone to records accuracy and unlawful account designation Under CFPB standards, complaints that introduce new facts, evidence, or legal theories do not qualify as duplicates. Retroactive consolidation without documented evidentiary review undermines the purpose of the complaint process and deprives the consumer of meaningful consideration. 

This is not a duplicate. Improper misclassification is a continuation of procedural failure and unlawful handling. 

3. Continued Denial of Records to Which I Am Entitled by Law Despite being designated as a joint account holder, I have repeatedly been denied access to records, including : In-person denial of access even when presenting valid government identification Denial of access via telephone Refusal to provide account formation documents, ownership records, or transaction histories As a joint account holderwhether lawfully or defectively designatedI am entitled under federal law to access records reflecting account ownership, formation, and maintenance. 

The continued refusal to provide these records raises concerns under, including but not limited to : The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution ( due process ) The Consumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ) The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ), where inaccurate ownership information is maintained or furnished The Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. ), as it relates to lawful account designation and recordkeeping Federal banking law and common-law recordkeeping duties requiring accurate maintenance and disclosure of consumer account records Administrative complaint closure does not negate or suspend these statutory obligations.

3A. Clarification Regarding Records Access and Improper Reliance on Subpoena Standard I further note, in anticipation of a common response, that my request for records is not a subpoena demand, nor does applicable law require a subpoena for a joint account holder to access their own account records. 

My requests are based on statutory consumer access rights and ordinary banking disclosure obligations, not civil discovery standards. 

A subpoena is a litigation tool used to compel production from third parties. It is not a prerequisite for a financial institution or regulator to provide records to an individual who is : Designated as a joint account holder, and/or Allegedly associated with an account for reporting, ownership, or liability purposes If I am treated as a joint owner for any purposewhether reporting, liability, internal coding, or account historythen I am entitled to inspect records supporting that designation without being forced into litigation. 

Requiring a subpoena to access ones own alleged account records would improperly shift the burden to the consumer, undermine statutory access rights, and raise due-process concerns. Administrative complaint closure does not convert statutory access obligations into discretionary discovery matters. 

This clarification is included to ensure the administrative record accurately reflects that my requests are lawful access requests, not discovery demands. 

4. Formal Requests for Corrective Action Accordingly, I respectfully request : 1. Reopening and substantive review of all complaints improperly closed or labeled as duplicates, with full consideration of all new evidence and legal issues 2. Written confirmation that each complaint has been reviewed in full 3. Immediate production of all records to which I am legally entitled, including account formation documents, ownership records, and transaction histories 4. Correction of the administrative record where complaints were misclassified 5. Cessation of premature closures absent documented evidentiary review These requests are consistent with CFPBs statutory mandate to ensure fair, transparent, and accountable handling of consumer complaints.

5. Preservation of Rights Nothing in this correspondence shall be construed as a waiver of any rights or remedies. I expressly reserve all rights under federal and state law. Administrative consolidation or closure of complaints does not preclude judicial review or civil remedies where unlawful conduct is established.

6. Conclusion This matter reflects a continuing procedural failure, not isolated error. This letter is submitted to ensure the administrative record accurately reflects the issues raised and to request corrective action consistent with law. 

I submit this correspondence for inclusion in the administrative record and await an appropriate response consistent with applicable law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation