Consumer complaint received 2026-04-26 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
Between approximately XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was living in a situation of domestic abuse involving coercive financial control. My spouse deliberately prevented me from accessing the mortgage account held with M & T Bank ( Account ending in XXXX, property located in XXXX, Pennsylvania ). Specifically, he controlled all access to finances, locked the physical mailbox so that I could not receive any mortgage statements or correspondence, disconnected my telephone and internet service so that I had no means to make payments or contact the servicer, and withheld the M & T Bank online banking login credentials entirely. I had no ability to access the account, view statements, or make payments during this period. The only way I was able to regain access was by secretly finding an attorney without my spouse 's knowledge and initiating divorce proceedings. My attorney formally demanded, on my behalf, that my spouse surrender the M & T Bank online banking login credentials and remove the lock from the physical mailbox and advised him that failure to comply would result in my attorney contacting law enforcement. It was only under that direct legal threat, and the imminent involvement of law enforcement, that he relinquished the login credentials and removed the lock from the mailbox. This is not a gray area. His refusal to provide access until forced to do so by an attorney threatening police involvement is direct, documented evidence of willful and deliberate obstruction. He did not forget the passwords. He did not misplace the key. He withheld them as a means of control, and he only gave them up when compelled to do so. This is not a situation where I chose not to pay. I was physically and technologically cut off from any ability to pay. This pattern of behavior isolating a victim from financial accounts, intercepting mail, controlling communications, and withholding account credentials until threatened with law enforcement is recognized under federal and Pennsylvania state law as a form of domestic abuse and coercive control. Under the Pennsylvania Protection From Abuse Act, 23 Pa.C.S. 6102 ( a ) ( 5 ), a pattern of conduct designed to place a person in reasonable fear or to control their circumstances constitutes abuse. Pennsylvania courts have recognized coercive financial control including restricting access to bank accounts, intercepting financial communications, and controlling a partner 's economic resources as actionable conduct under this statute. At the federal level, the Violence Against Women Act ( VAWA ), 34 U.S.C. 12291 et seq., as reauthorized in 2022, recognizes economic abuse as a form of domestic violence. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau itself, as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, launched a formal rulemaking under Docket No. XXXX specifically to address the harm caused to domestic violence survivors by inaccurate credit reporting tied to coerced debt and financially abusive conduct. The CFPB Director stated in connection with that rulemaking that the credit reporting system must not be used as a tool of domestic abuse. My situation is precisely what that rulemaking was designed to address. Despite the documented abuse that prevented me from making payments, M & T Bank reported the account as late to all three consumer reporting agencies for the following months : 30 days late for SXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 120 days late for XX/XX/XXXX, and 120 days late for XX/XX/XXXX. M & T Bank 's Own Records Show Payments Were Made Critically, even within the period of active abuse and restricted access, payments were received by M & T Bank. M & T Bank 's own transaction history and mortgage statements documents generated by the creditor itself confirm the following : On XX/XX/XXXX, a payment of {$3500.00} was received by M & T Bank and recorded in their servicing portal with that effective date. The credit report designates XX/XX/XXXX as 120 days late. On XX/XX/XXXX, an additional payment of {$370.00} was received and recorded by M & T Bank. The credit report continues to reflect a late designation for this period. On XX/XX/XXXX, M & T Bank 's own mortgage statement ( Statement Date XX/XX/XXXX ) confirms receipt and full application of a payment of {$3500.00} toward principal, interest, and escrow, effective XX/XX/XXXX prior to the stated due date of XX/XX/XXXX. The credit report designates XX/XX/XXXX as 120 days late. M & T Bank received these payments, recorded them in their own internal systems, and reflected them on their own official monthly statements. The simultaneous reporting of these months as late payment periods is factually irreconcilable with the creditor 's own records. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a furnisher is prohibited from reporting information it knows or has reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. M & T Bank 's own documents demonstrate that they knew payments were received during the disputed period. The Loan Was Modified And M & T Bank Acknowledged the Account Was in XXXX M & T Bank 's XX/XX/XXXX mortgage statement contains an express written acknowledgment that the account was either subject to agreed-upon terms of a mortgage assistance option or a pending offer, and that monthly statements would not reflect the modification terms until finalized. The modification was completed, and M & T Bank 's XX/XX/XXXX statement confirms the account fully current with a new interest rate of 5.750 %, an extended maturity date, and no past due balance. M & T Bank waived {$820.00} in late charges on XX/XX/XXXX, and reversed {$5700.00} in previously misapplied funds on XX/XX/XXXX all documented in their own transaction records. Despite completing the modification, waiving the late fees, and having documentation of payments received during the disputed period, M & T Bank continues to report late payment designations for XXXX through XXXX to all three consumer reporting agencies. The reporting is inaccurate, inconsistent with the creditor 's own records, and causes ongoing material harm. Legal Basis for This Complaint The following federal and Pennsylvania state laws support the removal of these late payment designations : Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681i requires consumer reporting agencies to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information and correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information. Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) requires furnishers to investigate disputes forwarded by consumer reporting agencies, review all relevant information, and correct or delete inaccurate information. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. recognizes economic abuse, financial coercion, and technological isolation as forms of XXXX XXXXXXXX. The XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX strengthened these protections and prohibits penalizing victims for consequences directly resulting from abuse. CFPB Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) initiated by the CFPB to address the harm of credit reporting tied to coerced debt and domestic financial abuse, specifically recognizing that controlling a partner 's access to financial accounts and payments constitutes coercive control that should not result in adverse credit reporting. Pennsylvania Protection From Abuse Act, 23 Pa.C.S. 6101 et seq. defines abuse to include a pattern of conduct designed to control, intimidate, or restrict another person 's liberty and access to resources. Coercive financial control, including controlling access to bank accounts, intercepting financial mail, and disconnecting communications, falls squarely within the conduct addressed by this statute. Pennsylvania Crime Victims Act, 18 P.S. 11.101 et seq. provides protections for crime victims in Pennsylvania and supports the principle that victims should not suffer additional legal or financial harm as a direct consequence of crimes committed against them.

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