PNC Bank, National Association Corporate

Complaint ID: 4205008

Product: Credit card or prepaid card

Sub-Product: General-purpose credit card or charge card

Issue: Closing your account

Subissue: Company closed your account

Company: PNC Bank N.A.

Complaint: I have been trying to get in contact with this company to resolve this issue as to why they shut down my account and they will not get in contact with me. The information as to why they shut down my account is inaccurate and I need help getting this resolved.

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

---

Complaint ID: 4204226

Product: Mortgage

Sub-Product: Conventional home mortgage

Issue: Trouble during payment process

Subissue:

Company: PNC Bank N.A.

Complaint: Home was purchased in XXXX, mortgage transferred to PNC in ~XXXX. PMI was required with purchase. When outstanding balance was at 79 % of loan I called to get steps to remove PMI. I was told that I had to have an appraisal and other steps to have it removed. Was advised it is automatically removed at 78 % of loan value. 78 % of loan value ( mortgage XXXX ) is {$120000.00} and was met approximately XX/XX/XXXX. We have continued to pay PMI of XXXX $ XXXX despite excellent payment history. We are initiating a refi of the home and received notice that PMI is FINALLY being removed ( currently owe XXXX {$110000.00} ) and that we may be due a refund. According to my calculations that is 69 % of loan value - although like most real estate our home value has increased since purchase. I am simply calculating from our original loan amount not from the current value of the home. I called again to request clarity on the refund and expectation that it should be at 78 % value and was informed by the representative that the Homeowner Protection Act is only a guideline and that the investor ( not necessarily the same as the lender ) can create their own guidance. This is not my understanding. I am requesting a formal review of this as well as full refund of any moneys paid towards PMI AFTER the required cancellation. Furthermore, I am requesting that PNC review their practices which seemed to be designed to obstruct the homeowners from cancelling PMI. At a minimum PNC needs to provide clear guidance and a simplified process rather than put multiple barriers in place that make it difficult if not impossible to have PMI removed when requested.

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

---

Complaint ID: 4203785

Product: Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan

Sub-Product: Installment loan

Issue: Problem with additional add-on products or services

Subissue:

Company: PNC Bank N.A.

Complaint: PNC after approving a proper loan, then disqualified me by claiming merely I was an employee. I am a fee-based govt official and file a Form XXXX. PNC has that form which has as a header XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX Attachment Form ( for use only by XXXX XXXX XXXX, qualified performing artists, fee-basis state or local government officials, and employees with impairment-related work expenses ) The IRS regulations discuss use of this form XXXX XXXX XXXX Purpose of Form Use Form XXXX if you were an XXXX XXXX XXXX, qualified performing artist, fee-basis state or local government official, or employee with impairment-related work expenses. Using a Form applicable to fee-basis state or local government official Does not make me an employee like a conventional bank employee. In fact the IRS explicitly states XXXX XXXX XXXX Fee-Basis Officials A fee-basis public official receives and retains remuneration directly from the public. This work is considered self-employment under IRC 1402 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( E ) and these individuals are not employees with respect to this work. Again, this work is considered self-employment under IRC 1402 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( E ) And these individuals are NOT employees with respect to this work It appears additionally rather than follow the IRS characterizations the Bank reached out to Federal Officials to influence them rather than apply plain language. The CARES Act defines payroll costs as including bb ) the sum of payments of any compensation to or income of a sole proprietor or independent contractor that is a wage, commission, income, net earnings from self-employment, or similar compensation and that is in an amount that is not more than {$100000.00} in 1 year, as prorated for the covered period ; Listing both wages as income of ... Self-employment Or similar This was approved initially and properly by Mr. XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/2020. Then a person, Ms. XXXX, lacking the knowledge of the IRS regulation then questioned his decision and has enlisted the executive resources of PNC to influence others to convince them the initial decision was defective even though under the IRS characterization of my work as This work is considered self-employment under IRC 1402 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( E ) and these individuals are not employees with respect to this work. She and PNC now try to say Im an employee in direct contravention of the IRS. And have been trying to convince various regulators using PNC near {$1.00} XXXX economic and political influence to substantiate its position which contradicts its own initial decision and IRS regulations. Small borrowers have priority but apparently small borrowers who do work of a nature Ms. XXXX who is actually a real estate banker and her Executive Office Staff Ms. XXXX with no knowledge of the CARES Act, payroll costs as defined in the Statute, the characterization of this work as self employment by the IRS now have to deal with a behind the scenes influence campaign of PNC with its favored regulator contacts. Because if I am right, and the code is the code, PNC has operated its program defectively from the startincluding discrimination by access and barriers to XXXX borrowers by using at a minimum defective definitions and internal audit, led by Ms. XXXX XXXX, who has done nothing but marshal resources to defend the lack of training this label of employee, and special type of borrower, applying the IRS characterization self-employment. Absent a determination in writing prior to XXXX by PNC as to treatment within its program to alter common IRS characterization, applicable to a borrower, it is my sense PNC rather than just fund the {$20000.00}, it refuses to acknowledge its own program which funded this loan has a defective audit process employing Ms. XXXX, overseen by Ms. XXXX, and a Board which doesnt implement a program that is accessible to XXXX borrowers. To be plain. This is a now secreted program seeking to defend itself reaching out to regulators who told me PNC should know all of this and not have to ask the SBA for instructions on a tiny XXXX loan it approved. But now it is building a case in secret, as it seems the IRS characterization of work should control as affected persons under the CARES Act. PNC also provided no preferential access during the Biden small borrower period to me. And I think still retains the expensive business account requirement to screen out XXXX borrowers.

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

---