Consumer complaint received 2025-11-15 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns the manner in which Ally Financial has reported a derogatory auto account to the nationwide consumer reporting agencies. The reporting from Ally Financial includes multiple late payments, long-term delinquency, collection and charge-off activity, and other negative data that appear to be inaccurate, unverifiable, or unsupported by proper documentation. The purpose of this complaint is to request an investigation into whether Ally Financial has complied with its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) where applicable, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus requirements governing accuracy, reinvestigation, verification, and furnishing of consumer financial information.

The negative information reported by Ally Financial includes a long series of late payments categorized as 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day delinquencies, along with an eventual charge-off designation. In addition, Ally Financial is reporting a past-due balance, significant derogatory history, and extended delinquency episodes that span many months. During my attempts to dispute and verify this information through the credit bureaus, I was never provided with any documentation substantiating these delinquency claims, nor was I given any records explaining the balance calculations, charge-off computation, or the internal accounting that led to the reporting of derogatory information.

I submitted disputes to all three major credit bureaus challenging the accuracy of the Ally Financial tradeline. The responses I received stated that the account had been verified, yet no details were provided about how this verification occurred. None of the bureaus provided a Method of Verification ( MOV ) that detailed the steps taken to verify the account, the documents reviewed, or the procedures followed during the reinvestigation. This lack of transparency raises concerns that the account was verified solely through an automated process, likely via the e-OSCAR system, which furnishes generic response codes rather than requiring the furnisher to submit documentation.

Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), I am entitled to a full description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy of the information. However, instead of receiving a detailed explanation, the bureaus merely repeated that Ally Financial had confirmed the information. There was no indication that the credit bureaus reviewed documents, requested proof, or conducted any form of meaningful reinvestigation. This contradicts the FCRAs requirement that reinvestigations must be reasonable and based on evidence.

Ally Financial is reporting an extensive series of late payments extending across many months. Each late payment must be supported by documentation showing : The date the payment was due The date the payment was received Whether the payment was processed correctly Whether interest or fees were applied according to the contract Whether there were any bank errors, internal posting delays, or misapplied payments To date, Ally Financial has not provided a complete payment history or ledger that would allow proper validation of these late payments. Without a record of when payments were actually received and how the account was serviced, the accuracy of the delinquency reporting can not be confirmed.

Additionally, Ally Financial reported the account as a charge-off. For a charge-off to be valid, the furnisher must maintain documentation showing : The date the account entered delinquency The date it reached the charge-off threshold The full calculation of the charge-off amount Any fees, interest, or additional charges included How the final past-due balance was derived Whether the calculations comply with the terms of the original financing agreement Ally Financial has not supplied any documents supporting these calculations. Without original account records, billing statements, payment schedules, and internal ledger documentation, the charge-off reporting can not be considered verified.

It is also unclear whether the vehicle associated with the account was repossessed, voluntarily surrendered, or disposed of through another process. If a repossession occurred, Ally Financial would be required to provide : Repossession documents Notices of intent to sell Sale price documentation Calculation of any deficiency balance Proof that required notices were sent in accordance with state law If no such documents exist, or if Ally Financial does not supply them when responding to a dispute, the furnishing of deficiency balances or charge-off information may violate the FCRA.

Furthermore, under FCRA 623 ( b ), furnishers must conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving notice of a dispute from a credit bureau. A reasonable investigation requires more than simply confirming the existence of internal data ; the furnisher must examine evidence, including account records, copies of payment histories, transactional details, and relevant account documentation. Ally Financial has not demonstrated that it performed any such investigation. The speed at which the disputes were marked verified suggests that an automated process responded without examining any real documentation.

FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) prohibits furnishers from reporting information they knowor should knowis inaccurate. If Ally Financial can not produce the documentation supporting its reported late payments, delinquency periods, or charge-off amount, then it should not continue furnishing the account in its current derogatory form.

Additionally, furnishers are required under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) to mark an account as disputed whenever a consumer formally disputes the information. During the dispute period, not all credit bureaus reflected the account as disputed, which violates the requirement to notify all consumer reporting agencies consistently. If Ally Financial failed to notify the bureaus that the account was under dispute, that in itself is a violation that must be corrected.

Moreover, any contradictions or inconsistencies between credit bureau reports must be reconciled. If Ally Financial reported different delinquency months, different balances, or different dates to each bureau, this violates the requirement for maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 602 ( a ). These discrepancies undermine the integrity of the reporting and further call the account into question.

There are additional concerns regarding the possibility of any transfers, internal assignments, or third-party involvement in the collection or servicing of the account. If Ally Financial transferred or sold the accountor engaged third parties for collectionsthen documentation showing the chain of assignment must exist. This includes : Bills of sale Assignment contracts Forward flow agreements Documentation showing the transferees right to collect and report If Ally Financial transferred the account but continues reporting without retaining documentation supporting delinquency claims, this presents additional accuracy issues.

Also, if any payment deferrals, hardship arrangements, or extensions were provided during the accounts life, Ally Financial is required to account for those modifications in its delinquency reporting. Late payments can not be reported during months covered by approved deferrals or accommodations. If any such arrangements were made and not documented correctly, the late reporting would be inaccurate.

Payment misapplications are also a known issue in auto loan servicing. Without a detailed ledger, it is impossible to determine whether payments were misapplied to late fees instead of principal, applied after grace periods due to internal posting delays, or applied incorrectly due to system errors. Any of these circumstances could create inaccurately reported delinquencies.

Additionally, the charge-off balance may include fees or charges that were not permissible under the original contract. Without documentation showing how the final amount was calculated, the accuracy of the balance can not be confirmed.

Given the severity of the derogatory reporting from Ally Financialwhich negatively affects creditworthiness, loan approvals, housing applications, interest rates, and insurance premiumsthe burden of proof is on the furnisher to demonstrate accuracy. This is especially important because the reported derogatory information includes extended periods of delinquency and a charge-off, both of which substantially harm a consumers credit standing.

Furnishers can not continue reporting such damaging information unless they can produce evidence that it is accurate, complete, and verified. If Ally Financial does not possess the necessary documentsor can not provide them during a disputethen the information is not verifiable and must be removed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).

A major concern is that Ally Financial likely did not provide any documentation to the credit bureaus during the reinvestigation process. The bureaus verification process appears to have relied solely on automated responses. Automated matching or database confirmation is not a legally compliant reinvestigation. The FCRA requires that reinvestigations include substantive review.

For these reasons, the negative information reported by Ally Financial must be investigated by the CFPB. The CFPB has the authority to require Ally Financial to supply documentation, verify the accuracy of its reporting, and demonstrate compliance with federal laws governing consumer data.

Since Ally Financial has not supplied any documentation in response to disputes, the continued reporting of the account in its derogatory form appears to violate several federal statutes, including : FCRA 602 ( a ) : requirement of maximum possible accuracy FCRA 607 ( b ) : requirement for reasonable procedures FCRA 611 : reinvestigation obligations FCRA 623 ( a ) : furnisher accuracy and dispute requirements FCRA 623 ( b ) : reinvestigation obligations FDCPA 809 ( b ) : validation requirements ( if a third-party collector was involved ) As a result of these failures, the negative reporting from Ally Financial has caused significant financial harm. the inability to obtain favorable interest rates, the denial of certain applications, and difficulties in obtaining credit-based opportunities are direct consequences of unverified derogatory reporting. This reporting continues to damage credit standing without proper supporting documentation.

Given all of the issues identified above, I am requesting that the CFPB investigate whether Ally Financial and the credit bureaus have complied with all relevant federal regulations. If Ally Financial can not produce the required documentation supporting the derogatory reporting, then the account should be removed entirely from all consumer reports.

This resolution is consistent with the FCRAs requirement that unverifiable information be deleted, and it ensures that all information being furnished is accurate, complete, and based on actual documentation, not automated or unsupported claims.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation