Consumer complaint received 2025-03-19 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Struggling to pay your loan — Problem after you declared or threatened to declare bankruptcy
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, a married couple XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Federal Reserve Board ( cc : CFPB ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX, XXXX XXXX Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to follow up on my previous complaint submitted in XX/XX/XXXX to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding the loan with M & T Bank, based in Maryland, that I entered into in XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPB forwarded my complaint to M & T Bank, and I received a response from M & T Bank that amounted to a blatant denial of any wrongdoingessentially a deny, deny, deny approach. In response, the CFPB did absolutely nothing on our behalf to remedy this situation. All CFPB did was act as a middleman and forward our complaint to M & T Bank. 

The issue at hand is that M & T Bank extended a 20-year " vehicle '' loan to me and my spouse, an elderly couple, without giving due consideration to the Truth in Lending Acts ( TILA ) " ability to repay '' requirements. This is a clear violation of lending laws designed to protect vulnerable borrowers like us, and the banks refusal to take responsibility for its actions is unacceptable. 

We are formally demanding that the Federal Reserve intervene and speak with M & T Bank, as well as with the CFPB in this matter to ensure that M & T Bank is held accountable for its predatory lending practices. We are requesting that you the Federal Reserve or the CFPB either take up this case directly or refer it to a law firm that will not reject it but will take the necessary steps to help us prosecute M & T Bank for punitive damages. 

I have attached the case for the Federal Reserve and the CFPB review, and we request an immediate response. Please take prompt action and respond to us as soon as possible. 

For your convenience, here is our contact information : XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Mailing Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX and XXXX This letter is being sent via certified mail with return receipt requested to the Federal Reserve, to the CFPB, and to M & T Ban

k Corportion. We expect a timely response and resolution. Thank you for your attentio
n to this serious matter. 

Sincerely, Plaintiffs XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Enclosure : Case Documentation ( READ BELOW SPECIFICS OF ALLEGATIONS ) Dear licensed MARYLAND attorney with experience in predatory lending : We, aged XXXX, are seeking the legal expertise of a licensed Maryland attorney experienced in predatory lending, as this case is a clear-cut violation of established TILA laws. M & T Bank issued a predatory loan to a XXXX couple, fully aware that the loan would inevitably implode within 1-2 years after consummation, when the couple transitioned from full-time employment to relying solely on their combined Social Security income. 

The bank made no consideration for the couples financial well-being, despite knowing their income would drastically decrease upon retirement, expected within 1-2 years after the loan was finalized. Furthermore, the bank failed to adhere to the TILA " ability to repay '' requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1639c ( a ), which mandates lenders to ensure that borrowers have the ability to repay the loan. Additionally, the bank ignored the couples staggering debt-to-income ratio of 125 % at the time of loan approval, far exceeding the 41 % debt-to-income ratio cap established under the TILA regulations, specifically 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ( e ), which sets limits on acceptable debt-to-income ratios for loans. Also, the couple at the time of loan consummation had not a single XXXX in reserves and no assets of any kind. 

Our case involves M & T Bank and its underwriters, operating its headquarters in XXXX, Maryland, and we need a Maryland-licensed attorney to represent us in a legal action against their underwriters. 

WHO DO WE WANT TO SUE? The finance company XXXX M & T Bank, and its underwriters, which are headquartered as stated per Plaintiffs loan contract : Assignment : This [ Retail Installment ] Contract and Security Agreement is assigned to M & T Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MD XXXX, phone XXXX. XXXX : Is M & T Bank in all 50 states? It operates XXXX branches in 12 states and XXXX  XXXX across the Eastern United States , from Maine to Virginia XXXX Until XX/XX/XXXX, the bank 's holding company was named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, New York, XXXX M & T Bank has been profitable in every quarter since XXXX. 

INTRODUCTION : In XX/XX/XXXX, the Plaintiffs, a married couple aged XXXX, purchased a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  for {$85000.00} with the intention of using it as their primary residence. This 20-year loan, with a monthly payment they could not sustain long-term, was approved despite the Plaintiffs financial vulnerabilities. Despite having excellent credit and a 10 % down payment, the Plaintiffs were preparing for retirement in XXXX or XXXX, and their income was set to drop dramatically from approximately {$20000.00} per month to just {$3400.00} per month, before taxes, from their combined Social Security. They had no assets nor reserves. 

Prior to securing the {$85000.00} loan, the Plaintiffs had an alarming debt-to-income ratio of 125 %, far exceeding the 41 % cap set by the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). According to TILA, lenders must assess a borrowers ability to repay the loan before approval ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ). TILA mandates that lenders verify income, evaluate a borrowers debt obligations, and ensure that the borrower can reasonably meet the terms of the loan without undue hardship ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ( c ) ( 2 ) ). The Plaintiffs had every intention of paying off their existing debts before retiring, yet their financial situation took a drastic turn for the worse when the male Plaintiff lost his sole source of income just six months after the loan was consummated in XX/XX/XXXX. Without reserves, assets, or any other income to rely on, they were left in a position where they could not meet the obligations of the {$85000.00} loan or manage their existing debts. 

From the outset, this loan was predatory. The Plaintiffs were already financially overextended when they agreed to this loan at the ages of XXXX, and M & T Banks underwriters knew it. The loan was structured to fail, with no feasible plan to repay such a substantial debt given the Plaintiffs ' imminent reliance on Social Security income. This lack of foresight, combined with the banks disregard for the Plaintiffs financial well-being, demonstrates the predatory nature of this loan. M & T Bank 's actions were deliberate, and they knowingly set the Plaintiffs up for failure. 

This case is a clear example of financial exploitation, and it presents an opportunity to hold M & T Bank accountable for its actions. The Plaintiffs financial devastation is not just a consequence of misfortune, but the result of a predatory loan designed to trap them in an untenable position. We urge you to consider taking this case on, as it highlights a blatant disregard for the Plaintiffs ' financial security, as well as a clear violation of TILAs ability-to-repay requirements ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ). M & T Bank 's actions violate responsible lending practices and demand legal action. 

We, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, a married couple aged XXXX at the time of loan consummation in XX/XX/XXXX, are seeking a licensed Maryland attorney. We have been subjected to predatory lending practices that involve clear violations of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), causing significant financial hardship.

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