Consumer complaint received 2025-12-18 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:
Sent XX/XX/XXXX This complaint contains new evidence, procedural failures, and claims not included in any prior submission. 

XXXX. XXXX of Accounts XX/XX/XXXX In XX/XX/XXXX, I independently contacted PNC Bank to determine whether any accounts existed under my name due to suspicion of unauthorized activity. I provided all required identification and verification. 

PNC disclosed only minimal information, implying that a savings account existed in my name. Employees focused on limiting my access rather than initiating proper safeguards required when identity theft is suspected. I was advised to obtain account information from the other joint owner, despite my independent legal rights as a joint owner. This violated the FACTA Red Flags Rule and failed to protect my identity. 

XXXX. Branch 1 In-Person Access Denied ( XX/XX/XXXX ) I visited Branch XXXX in person with valid government-issued identification. XXXX employees were involved in denying access : Branch XXXX Employee A ( Female ) and Branch XXXX Employee B ( Male ). 

I was denied access and informed that a parent was required, despite being XXXX XXXX XXXX. I was also told I was supposed to come in that Friday to be signed on, though I had never been notified. This statement was suspicious, caused confusion, and raised a red flag regarding potential unauthorized activity. Only minimal information was disclosed ( like it appears to be a savings account but youre required to have a parent to sign on ). This conduct obstructed my lawful ability to access the account and investigate potential unauthorized activity. 

XXXX. Branch XXXX Access Granted and Discovery of Fraudulent Activity ( XX/XX/XXXX ) I visited Branch XXXX shortly afterward. 

During my initial visit, a branch employee raised initial forgery concerns, questioning how I had been added as a joint owner without being present, documented my phone number for mobile banking access, and disclosed that the account was opened in XXXX and that I was added as a joint owner in XXXX. Mobile banking statements later confirmed this. Immediately after raising and stating her concern about signature forgery, the employee refused to show me the signature records, despite my requests. 

Although she documented my number, the employee denied me the ability to view the signature pad after raising the forgery concern. She stated that either she or a Branch XXXX employee would follow up regarding these concerns, but no follow-up occurred. 

During this first visit, another Branch XXXX employee ( female ) confirmed that I was listed as a joint owner and should have access to the account given that I was XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Although access was granted, the mobile banking verification code was not initially reaching my phone. I reported possible forgery concerns to PNC customer service the same day I left Branch XXXX. 

I returned to Branch XXXX for additional phone verification. I did not see the employee who raised the initial forgery concerns and have not heard from her since, despite her assurance of follow-up. I did see the other female Branch XXXX employee, who assisted me in verifying my phone number and obtaining full mobile banking access. Only at this point was I able to view fraudulent statements and impersonation activity. 

XXXX. Agent XXXX XXXX, PNC XXXX Department Supervisor In XX/XX/XXXX, I reported the suspected forgery to PNCs customer service and I called to file a new investigation. 

PNC XXXX Department Supervisor contacted me via phone, and closed the initial forgery investigation almost immediately, claiming my signature was not required to be added in XXXX as a joint owner, providing no evidence, only her word. 

When I called PNC to reopen or file a new investigation, around XX/XX/XXXX, it appeared I was speaking to the same Fraud Department Supervisor, XXXX, though she denied acknowledging or clarifying this potential conflict of interest against my request. XXXX initially explained that her computer could not generate a code, which she provided as her reason for refusing to assist me with the investigation. She never directly provided a reason for blocking my mobile banking access, and she did not inform me that access would be blocked. After the call ended, XXXX blocked my mobile access without notice, immediately following her refusal to assist me with filing an identity theft, forgery, or fraud investigation. 

After completing full requested verification in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX blocked my online banking access after the ending of the call, overnight, and without notice. She never stated that I had provided incorrect information. 

The same night, I continued to receive notifications of large and rapid withdrawals from the account. 

After requesting lawful compliance, requesting clarity of potential conflict of interest, and clearly stating my intent to report fraudulent activity, XXXX repeatedly denied further assistance, and blocked me, preventing proper investigation and allowing unauthorized activity to continue. 

XXXX. Agent XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mishandling, I escalated the matter to the CFPB. 

XXXX XXXX did not request or review my evidence, including fraudulent statements. She did not perform an independent or neutral review and repeatedly handled matters related to prior mismanagement, creating a conflict of interest. 

XXXX initially claimed that I was blocked for reporting identity theft. When I informed her that XXXX had provided a different reason, XXXX changed her explanation to attempt to match XXXX. However, these were XXXX completely different definitions : XXXX stated that the system could not generate a code, whereas XXXX claimed I was blocked due to failing verification. This distinction is critical, especially given that I provided all accurate information, which can not be lawfully denied, and is verifiable through call recordings. 

I replied directly to XXXX verbally that this is not logical reasoning to deny assistance or to prevent opening an identity theft investigation, which they failed to do. 

XXXX claims to have investigated and concluded there were no actionable issues ; however, she was aware of the evidence of impersonation, the unlawful explanations provided by XXXX regarding the forgery, call recordings, mobile banking statements, previous investigations, complaints, and sources of information and funds. Despite this, XXXX denied classifying the account activity as identity theft and allowed the possible suspect to close the account, instead of lawfully reporting the evidence and closing the account herself in accordance with applicable law. 

XXXX. Legal and Regulatory Violations The above conduct involves violations of multiple laws and regulations : XXXX : * FACTA Red Flags Rule * Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Regulation E ) * GLBA safeguarding customer information * UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ) * XXXX requirements * Bill of Rights protections : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Amendments ( privacy, property, due process ) Alabama State XXXX * Alabama Identity Theft Statutes ( Ala. Code 13A-8-192 et seq. ) * Alabama Uniform Consumer Credit Code ( Ala. Code 5-19-1 et seq. ) * Alabama Data Breach Notification Act ( Ala. Code 8-38-1 et seq. ) 7. Desired Resolution Law-Based Version I request that PNC Bank : 1. Document and verify that I was properly listed as a joint owner and correct all internal and external records to accurately reflect my ownership history, in compliance with XXXX requirements, XXXX, and other applicable federal and state recordkeeping regulations. 
XXXX. Conduct a thorough and independent review of any potential unauthorized activity, identity misuse, or fraudulent transactions associated with my information, including any funds withdrawn, transferred, or used prior to account closure, regardless of source, and provide full access to all related records to the extent I am lawfully entitled. This includes, but is not limited to : account-opening documentation, signature cards, mobile banking and online statements, call recordings, internal notes, emails, branch visit logs, and any surveillance footage, in accordance with Regulation XXXX, FACTA Red Flags Rule, UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ), and Alabama state statutes on identity theft and consumer protection ( Ala. Code 13A-8-192 et seq. ). 
XXXX. Restore or remediate any funds or financial products created or accessed using my identity, to the extent possible, pending investigation, and ensure compliance with consumer protection laws and due process rights under the XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. 
XXXX. Implement safeguards to prevent further unauthorized access or misuse of my personal information, consistent with XXXX, XXXX XXXX and applicable state regulations. 
XXXX. Ensure that future complaints and investigations related to my accounts are handled by neutral personnel, with proper escalation and transparency, to avoid conflicts of interest and guarantee impartial review. 

This complaint is submitted with the expectation that regulatory authorities enforce all applicable laws and require lawful, neutral, and transparent handling of identity theft, forgery, impersonation, and banking misconduct. Premature closure, denial of access, or failure to identify responsible parties constitutes continued noncompliance with consumer-protection obligations.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation