Consumer complaint received 2017-03-21 00:00:00
Product: Consumer Loan — Vehicle loan
Issue: Taking out the loan or lease — 
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Ally has not responded to resolve the discrimination complaint of XX/XX/2017. 
ref # XXXX Based on the response from Ally, XXXX, of XX/XX/2017 It is apparent that further investigation is warranted into the policies and practices of Ally used to determine credit worthiness. 
This XX/XX/2017 response from Ally is ambiguous, appears to be in conflict with itself, and is potentially misleading. Nowhere in this response is there supporting information that one can conclude Ally has not acted within a posture of age discrimination to determine credit worthiness. Simply reiterating a statement that " Ally takes claims of discrimination very seriously '' does nothing to support that Ally has not acted in just such a posture. Indeed, the lack of specificity and clarity begs the question. 

What is the criteria, specifically, which Ally would have approved this TOE? Income? How much? Use of available credit accounts? Be specific. Available cash on hand in a bank account? What exactly are those quantifiable " merits ''? My credit history reflects an unblemished credit score of XXXX and a practice of XXXX balancing credit card statements every month for years. Surely this must have some weight in the formula for credit worthiness. 

Further, please elaborate and explain the portion of the statement referring to the credit inquiry made in XX/XX/2017 that reads, " since we did not use the accurate information upon receipt of your TOE application ''. 

Ally has not and did not request or receive any additional information from myself since the initial mailing of the Ally TOE application of XX/XX/2017. Ally did not have " a permissible purpose '' to access my credit report in XX/XX/2017 in connection with evaluating the Ally TOE application. 

Additionally, the XX/XX/2017 letter to CFPB states that " an 'accurate ' declination letter will be mailed to you under separate cover at the address on the application indicating the reasons for our decision ''. This letter has not been received. Waiting for this letter to show up has caused yet further delay in my responding herein, and with each day of delay from Ally, it costs me more money to pursue the acquisition of a vehicle not to mention the induced frustration. The letter that Ally did XXXX mail to me under separate cover is a copy of the letter sent through the CFPB complaint system. Yet again, one can see how the Ally response letter is fraught with ambiguity. 

For the reasons stated above, I hereby demand that Ally, immediately, remove the unwarranted credit inquiry made in XX/XX/2017 so as not to further delay and constrain my vehicle acquisition initiative and promptly notify me through the CFPB complaint process when this action is taken. 

It is my sincere hope that future communications from Ally do not lead to more granular questioning, costs, and further, damaging time delays. Please include the CFPB in ALL communications. 
Sincerely.

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