Consumer complaint received 2026-01-08 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
The companys response does not resolve my complaint. While Ally submitted selected payment history tables and generalized explanations, its response fails to reconcile multiple material discrepancies between its own records and the objective transaction data I provided. The submission relies on boilerplate language rather than addressing documented servicing failures. 

After comparing XXXX CFPB response tables, XXXX  internal ledger pages, XXXX online payment portal transaction history, my bank-processed payment records, and XXXX returned-payment charts, multiple unresolved issues remain. 

Allys records show several payments first posted as completed and then reversed days later, including in XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. In multiple instances reversals occurred XXXX to XXXX days after posting, not contemporaneously. This is not routine ACH rejection processing. These delayed reversals created artificial delinquency that triggered late fees, interest accrual, and negative account status. XXXX  response lists generic return reasons, but those reasons do not match the timing reflected in the transaction history, conflict with XXXX own portal and ledger entries, and were not accompanied by contemporaneous notice when the reversals occurred. This pattern reflects post-posting reversals without proper disclosure that materially misstated account standing. 

XXXX  own records further show inconsistent return reasons across documents. The same transactions carry different rationales depending on which Ally record is reviewed. Some payments were accepted, reflected as completed, and later retroactively labeled invalid without consistent documentation. These inconsistencies demonstrate that XXXX response does not present a reliable or reconciled accounting. 

XXXX  transaction history also contains multiple entries labeled reallocations, including zero-dollar adjustments. These entries are not explained in XXXX CFPB response, coincide with periods when balances, delinquency status, and fee assessments changed, and appear to function as internal reposting mechanisms without consumer disclosure. Ally has provided no documentation explaining why reallocations were necessary, what payments were moved, or how they affected principal, interest, and late fees. 

Ally represents that billing statements were provided beginning in XXXX, yet the portal documentation shows significant gaps, including missing portions of XXXX and substantial gaps throughout XXXX. Without full statements, a borrower can not verify proper application of payments, accuracy of balances, legitimacy of late fees, or interest accrual calculations. A partial production is not a valid accounting. 

When comparing XXXX ledger pages, portal transaction history, and CFPB response tables, payments appear with different amounts depending on the record source. Certain ledger entries show negative finance charges and reversals that are not coherently explained. Some payments appear to be applied, reversed, and then reapplied without a clear XXXX XXXX. Balance progressions do not logically track given the payment amounts shown. This reflects systemic accounting incoherence rather than clerical variation. 

Ally asserts that certain payments were declined or returned due to bank processing issues. That explanation is contradicted by XXXX own records. After labeling a payment declined, Ally accepted and successfully processed multiple subsequent payments using the same account method without any change in account information. If the payment method were truly invalid or closed, later payments would also have failed. They did not. This establishes that the rejection was not caused by my bank or invalid credentials but by XXXX internal handling of the transaction. Ally then treated that rejection as borrower default, assessed late fees and interest, issued repossession warnings, and reported negative credit information based on a rejection that XXXX  own later conduct proves was not a legitimate bank failure. This demonstrates servicer-created delinquency, not borrower-caused default. 

XXXX  response relies heavily on general contract language regarding APR, finance charge, and payment application. This does not address whether XXXX servicing practices complied with law when payments were reversed after posting, return reasons changed across records, reallocations altered balances without disclosure, and billing statements were missing. Contract boilerplate does not cure defective servicing execution. 

Despite claiming transparency, Ally has not provided a single reconciled accounting that traces each payment from submission to final disposition, identifies every reversal with consistent documentation, explains every reallocation, reconciles ledger, portal, and CFPB tables, and shows accurate principal, interest, and fee application. What was provided is fragmented data, not a lawful accounting. 

Because of these unresolved discrepancies, XXXX response does not resolve my complaint. I respectfully request that this matter remain documented with the CFPB and be reviewed in light of the systemic servicing and accounting failures demonstrated by XXXX own records.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation