Consumer complaint received 2018-10-14 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Changes in terms mid-deal or after closing
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On Saturday, XX/XX/XXXX, my wife, XXXX XXXX, and I visited XXXX XXXX located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX. We went to test drive and potentially buy a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. We were assisted by XXXX XXXX. After the test drive, we decided to try to move forward with the purchase. We submitted a credit application which was turned down by quite a few lenders initially. Then, XXXX XXXX brought out a paper stating that we had been approved for a loan by Ally Financial at a rate of 12 % with our $ XXXX down payment. We were not verbally explained the amounts on the paperwork and he was trying to get us to quickly sign off on the deal. We studied the paperwork closely and saw that they had included optional items, such as a $ 2600+ warranty, $ 500+ fabric/paint protection, and $ 600+ GAP coverage. I told XXXX that we reject the warranty and fabric/paint coverage, and thats where things got ugly. He pressured us about it and then went in the back office and came out with another guy from finance that told us that our financing would only be approved if we kept those coverages. Refusing to be strong-armed into purchasing optional coverages that would consume my down payment and equity in the vehicle, I declined the coverages. During the conversation, the finance guy made a striking comment. He said, were not trying to do anything illegal here. Why would that need to be made known unless he was doing something that he potentially thought to be illegal? Our application was re-submitted and supposedly rejected by Ally for refusing the optional coverages. This would seem counterintuitive since we would have more equity in the vehicle itself by rejecting these coverages. But, once the cushy relationship between Ally, XXXX, and XXXX are investigated further, it makes perfect sense. Here is an excerpt from an article. 
Ally has signed an agreement with XXXX XXXX XXXX to provide vehicle service contracts ( VSCs ) and guaranteed asset protection ( GAP ) coverage for the group 's XXXX dealerships in Colorado and Texas. 
Through the agreement, XXXX customers will have the option of adding Ally GAP and Ally Premier Protection service contracts to their purchases. 
Ally Premier Protection covers the repair cost for over 7,400 mechanical, electrical and safety components on a vehicle, as well as some related expenses such as trip interruption, rental car coverage, towing and 24/7 roadside assistance. 
It appears that Ally and XXXX are working in collusion to force potential buyers into purchasing F & I ( Finance and Insurance ) products as a requirement for approval. This raises the question of legality. Is it legal to make F & I products mandatory for financing approval? I have been told that this is illegal, and it sure does not feel right. Aside from the outrageous interest rate of 12 % initially offered, they also wanted an instant $ 3k+ payday for optional coverages that are mandatory for approval. I feel as though they are wrong, defrauding the public, and involved in deceptive and potentially illegal business practices. 
I request an investigation into this cushy relationship and deceptive business practices, and an analysis of the legality of requiring F & I products as a precondition for approval of auto financing.

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