Consumer complaint received 2026-03-10 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Other banking product or service
Issue: Managing an account — Problem accessing account
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/XXXX, borrower obtained a {$150000.00} Term Loan and a {$100000.00} Business Access Line of Credit. Bank VP and Senior Branch Manager ( XXXX # XXXX ) responded in writing via email, copied to two bank staff members, stating : 'The Line of Credit payments will be interest only payments for the foreseeable future and the funds are meant to be used and repaid frequently but there is no specific time frame the customer would be expected to make principal plus interest payments if using the line correctly. ' Borrowers relied on this written VP-level representation and structured payments accordingly. From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, borrowers made 32 consecutive on-time payments with no missed payments. This includes 26 months of regular payments followed by a 6-month forbearance from XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, every payment confirmed by the bank 's assigned Workout Officer. Prior to entering forbearance, borrowers asked the Workout Officer repeatedly whether forbearance would result in any delinquency reporting or adverse impact and were told no, repeatedly. The Line of Credit was not included in the forbearance and borrowers kept it current throughout. On XX/XX/XXXX, the bank sent a written letter unilaterally converting the Business Access Line of Credit to a 60-month amortized payment schedule without borrower consent and without providing the new monthly payment amount. When borrowers asked why the conversion was occurring, the Workout Officer stated borrowers had never paid down the balance, which is demonstrably false given documented draws and paydowns throughout XXXX and XXXX. Borrowers made payments on both accounts on XX/XX/XXXX, and again on the line of credit in XX/XX/XXXX, demonstrating continued intent to remain current. On XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, borrowers sent two formal written emails to the Workout Officer requesting written confirmation of loan status, contractual basis for payment changes, and copies of all loan documentation. Both emails included a formal reservation of rights. Neither received a substantive response. On XX/XX/XXXX, without responding to either written inquiry, the bank issued formal acceleration demand letters on both accounts demanding payment in full by XX/XX/XXXX, with no prior written notice of default and no cure period. On XX/XX/XXXX, the bank sent written notice attributing cancellation of autopay to the borrower 's request. No such request was ever made. This was a unilateral bank action falsely attributed to borrowers. On XX/XX/XXXX, the bank removed both borrowers ' online portal access entirely without notice or consent. From that point forward it was physically impossible to make payments, view balances, access statements, or verify account standing online. When borrowers asked in writing why access was removed, the Workout Officer responded only that someone would be in contact. That contact turned out to be outside legal counsel. On XX/XX/XXXX, the bank swept funds from a separate deposit account without prior written notice to borrowers who had no portal access and no ability to monitor account activity. On XX/XX/XXXX, outside counsel sent a demand letter for {$190000.00} with no workout offer, no cure period, no confirmed payoff amount as of a current date, and no deadline other than the word immediately. This is the first communication from outside counsel and arrived with no prior written workout offer from the bank. From loan origination in XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, borrowers repeatedly requested complete executed loan documentation including the Business Loan Agreement, Guaranty Agreement, and Security Agreement. None were ever provided. The only document received was the Term Note itself. The online portal never displayed complete payment history for the line of credit, making it impossible for borrowers to independently verify account standing at any point during the relationship. The bank also switched from regular email to a secure internal messaging platform during the workout period, and borrowers no longer have access to messages sent on that platform, creating an inaccessible record during the most critical period of the relationship.

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