Consumer complaint received 2023-07-26
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: TX
Product: Vehicle loan or lease
Sub-product: Loan
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease
Sub-issue: Problem while selling or giving up the vehicle

Complaint:
A vehicle accident occurred on XX/XX/2023. My insurance company, XXXX XXXX XXXX, was contacted, a claim was made, and on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX, I was informed that my vehicle would have to go to an auto garage before the claim could be processed. Fast forward, on XX/XX/XXXX or XXXX, while checking my email, I was quite surprised as I happened upon an email from my insurance company in which there was a time sensitive settlement letter dated XX/XX/2023. I had not spoken to the insurance company in recent days and was not expecting this email. This important email could have easily been overlooked or gone into Spam. The letter stated my vehicle had been deemed a total loss and offered two ( 2 ) options, Option 1 : Title Release Settlement and Option 2 : Owner Retain Settlement. The settlement letter stated, " if the forms for the Title Release Settlement are not secured by XX/XX/2023, we will proceed with the Owner Retain Settlement offer. '' However, when I spoke to the claims adjuster on XX/XX/XXXX and told her I was looking at going with Option 1, she stated I would have to give her permission that day to pick up the vehicle as she would have to have it in her physical possession on XX/XX/XXXX. Although the settlement letter stated I had until XX/XX/2023 to make a decision, the claims adjuster said if the vehicle is not in their physical possession on XX/XX/XXXX, I would most likely have to retain the vehicle. I chose Option 1, Title Release Settlement of {$8300.00}. There was a lienholder, and after waiting for weeks to hear that the lienholder was paid, what I received instead was an email from XXXX XXXX that the amount from Option 2, {$3900.00}, was paid to the lienholder and that the vehicle was at XXXX, a storage facility, and would be considered abandoned unless picked up in 10 days. After inquiring with XXXX XXXX, we were told the lienholder did not reply in 10 days when they requested the letter of guarantee, so they sent them the amount from Option 2, {$3900.00}. However, when we contacted the lienholder, Ally Financial, they said they had in fact spoken with the insurance company who had provided them with a XXXX evaluation, but they informed XXXX XXXX that they do not accept XXXX evaluations. Instead, they asked XXXX XXXX XXXX to provide them with a vehicle evaluation from a list of companies they provided, but XXXX XXXX refused to do so. To resolve this matter, I offered to both the insurer and the lienholder to pay for the vehicle evaluation, but both refused the offer. We are caught in between two companies dispute having done absolutely nothing wrong but everything that we were supposed to do by the book. 

XXXX XXXX says they are not willing to change their vehicle evaluation policy of using XXXX and has refused to provide the lienholder with a vehicle evaluation from one of the companies whose evaluations they accept - XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, etc. Consequently, Ally Financial refused to provide the Letter of Guarantee to the insurer. We have spent countless hours on the phone as well as emailing trying to resolve this matter. Its almost impossible to speak to someone at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, TX headquarters. We have called Ally Financial for more than 2 months and spoken with more than 8 individuals. and they have all said the same thing, We do not accept XXXX evaluations. They undervalue vehicles. Again, we heard the exact words from each person we spoke to for 2 months. I requested to speak to a manager at Ally Financial as well as a copy of their WRITTEN policy that states an insurer must use one of the companies from Ally 's approved list of vehicle evaluations companies as well as written documentation stating they do not accept XXXX evaluations. I never received a call from a manager although I was told one would contact me in XXXX hours. After contacting Ally Financial several more times, including XX/XX/XXXX or XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX and being told once more, We do not accept XXXX evaluations. They undervalue vehicles, I again requested to speak with a manager and a written documentation of their evaluation policy but to no avail. After not hearing from the manager, I called Ally Financial again on XX/XX/XXXX, and was told that they have been discussing XXXX XXXX XXXX for the past few weeks and their XXXX evaluations and that they are looking at them on a case-by-case basis. And now, suddenly and inexplicably, they tell me that they will accept the XXXX evaluation. The representative said they will try to contact XXXX XXXX and send the Letter of Guarantee. 

In a follow-up call on Monday, XX/XX/XXXX, Ally said they sent the Letter of Guarantee to XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and has tried to contact them, but no one is returning their calls. I continue to request a copy of Ally 's written vehicle evaluation policy. I want to know what LEGAL basis they had to withhold the Letter of Guarantee from the insurer. The policy governing the vehicle evaluation is written, legally binding, and is contained within the '' 4 corners of the document. '' My husband and I who paid our monthly insurance premiums and made monthly car payments, are innocent consumers who remain caught between two large companies - an insurer and a lienholder. For 4 months, we have been without a second vehicle, resulting in having to sometimes use XXXX to get back and forth to work as well as rent a vehicle, not to mention the undue hardship from countless hours of phone calls, emails, and the mental, emotional, and financial toll that has been placed on our family. We continue to make monthly payments to Ally Financial which, if they had provided the Letter of Guarantee to the insurance company when requested, would be paid off by now and we would be in a position to get another vehicle.

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