Consumer complaint received 2019-04-02
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: VA
Product: Vehicle loan or lease
Sub-product: Lease
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease
Sub-issue: Excess mileage, damage, or wear fees, or other problem after the lease is finished

Complaint:
Unconscionable leasing practices ; Unfair and deceptive trade practices ; Breach of Contract ; Violation ( s ) of the Consumer Leasing Act COMPLAINT 1. This is a complaint against Ally Financial Inc. and Ally Bank ( collectively, Ally ). Ally is one of the nations largest automobile financing companies, originating billions of dollars in automobile leases every year through its standardized lease contract, the SmartLease. Ally has made its SmartLease agreement available to thousands of dealerships nationwide. 

2. Allys SmartLease has been the subject of numerous consumer complaints, including a recent near {$20.00} million settlement deal to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming that the company hit vehicle owners with hidden fees that were allegedly not listed in their lease-to-own agreements. 

3. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Consumer ) entered into a 42-month Ally SmartLease on XX/XX/XXXX with total base scheduled payments of {$45000.00}. The Consumer made every payment on time without incident. 

4. The SmartLease included a {$1100.00} refundable security deposit. 

5. The SmartLease ended on XX/XX/XXXX. 
The SmartLease was extended for one month. The payment under the SmartLease extension was made on XX/XX/XXXX via XXXX XXXX for {$1000.00}. 

6. The leased vehicle was returned on XX/XX/XXXX to the following Ally location : XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, VA XXXX. There was no excess wear and tear or visible damage. The vehicle was functional with no indicators or warning lights displayed. ( Photos of vehicle at Ally return location are available upon request ) Note : The Ally location is under major construction. The dealer drove the vehicle to a parking garage and stored it in an uncovered spot in the garage ; exposed to the elements. 

7. At the return of the vehicle the Consumer provided written notification of the lease return, made a written request for Ally to advise of timing to inspect and close out the lease. ( See emails to Ally - CASE : # XXXX, FIRST REQUEST XX/XX/XXXX, SECOND REQUEST XX/XX/XXXX ) 8. After returning the vehicle, the Consumer was not advised by Ally either of the timing of the inspection of the vehicle.

9. The vehicle was not inspected at the location where the vehicle was turned in. The vehicle was instead transported and subject to a 3rd party inspector at another location. 

10. After the date the vehicle was returned, the Consumer made numerous phone calls and two written request to Ally but received no correspondence from Ally for over 45 days. 

11. The Consumer finally received correspondence from Ally, in the form of an itemized bill, alleging excess wear during the week of XX/XX/XXXX -- over 45 days after the date the vehicle was returned. 

12. The itemized excess wear and damage bill didnt include a notice of the Consumers right to an inspection of the vehicle or any other process if the Consumer disagreed with the bill. 

13. The Consumer was denied reasonable access to the vehicle for an additional appraisal/inspection. However, the following week after Ally sent the bill to the Consumer, Ally sold the Vehicle sold at auction on XX/XX/XXXX.

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