Consumer complaint received 2026-05-07 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Account reinstatement or redemption after repossession
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
The complainant is the recipient of an XX/XX/XXXX letter from Ally Bank identifying him personally as a guarantor on Ally account ending in the last XXXX digits of the agreement number. The account is held by XXXX, XXXX, of which the complainant is sole member and XXXX. The vehicle is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Ally sent XXXX XXXX successive modification agreements, each pre-executed by Ally Bank, each accepted by XXXX within Ally 's stated XXXX acceptance window, and each unilaterally voided by Ally with no stated reason beyond the word " VOID. '' XXXX of XXXX were voided the same day XXXX signed. XXXX written requests for explanation went unanswered. Ally then granted a supervisor escalation on XX/XX/XXXX that never occurred. While the complainant was waiting for that escalation, Ally repossessed the vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX from the complainant 's wife ( not a party to the loan ) at her workplace, a public elementary school in XXXX XXXX, with no advance notice through any channel including the active email channel through which Ally and the complainant had been corresponding. XXXX redeemed the obligation by wire of {$6800.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. Ally confirmed receipt the same day on a recorded call and confirmed that the security interest was released and the release form uploaded to the recovery agent ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). XXXX XXXX XXXX Ally 's collateral management vendor, separately confirmed receipt of the release paperwork. As of this filing, more than XXXX hours after Ally 's confirmed release, the vehicle remains in XXXXXXXX XXXX physical possession. XXXX has not responded to XXXX written communications from the complainant requesting confirmation of the release paperwork and an appointment to retrieve the vehicle. XXXX bypassed the complainant 's correspondence channel to call his wife rather than respond in writing. Ally XXXX XXXX XXXX acknowledged the matter on XX/XX/XXXX ( file XXXX ) but has not addressed the ongoing retention. The Ally XXXX currently displays the account as " XXXX XXXX '' with a total balance of {$61000.00} and a next payment of {$1600.00} due XX/XX/XXXX. The redemption cured the default and reinstated the loan. The account should not display as past due as of any date before XX/XX/XXXX. The displayed payment amount is also the original payment of {$1600.00} rather than the modified payment of {$1400.00} that XXXX had bargained for in the XXXX voided modification agreements. If the past-due designation is currently being reported to consumer reporting agencies, that raises FCRA furnisher concerns under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. The XX/XX/XXXX cover letter, received XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX days before the scheduled XX/XX/XXXX auction, identifies the complainant personally as " a guarantor on this account. '' The communication identifies itself as from a debt collector. No guaranty document exists in the complainant 's records. The vehicle is registered and insured to XXXX alone, the loan does not appear on the complainant 's personal credit report, and the modification correspondence and signature blocks throughout the workout cycle were directed exclusively to XXXX through the complainant in his representative capacity. The assertion of personal guarantor liability against an individual without supporting documentation, in a formal collection communication, implicates 15 U.S.C. 1692e and XXXX. The pattern of issuing modification agreements through the workout team while the collection function moved toward repossession, with no coordination between the XXXX, presents the factual structure the XXXX has identified as dual tracking. The framework is well developed in mortgage servicing and the analysis applies to auto finance servicing where the lender holds itself out as offering workout opportunities. The supervisor callback Ally granted on XX/XX/XXXX was the documented escalation point that should have stopped the collection track. It did not occur, and the repossession proceeded XXXX weeks later. A parallel complaint was filed with the Maryland XXXX of the XXXX of XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and is uploaded as documentary backup along with supporting exhibits and a screenshot of the current account status.

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