Consumer complaint received 2026-06-25 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
CFPB COMPLAINT XXXX XXXX XXXX Ally Financial / Ally Servicing LLC Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NC XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX RE : Agreement No. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX I am filing this complaint against Ally Financial and Ally Servicing LLC regarding Agreement No. XXXX. I am the co-borrower on this auto loan, which was originated XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX , NC. I have not initiated contact with Ally Financial at any point during the life of this account. In XX/XX/XXXX, Allys collector called me at my workplace. I stated it was not a convenient time to speak and ended the call. I did not discuss the account, make any admissions, or engage on the substance of the debt. I did not answer the subsequent callback that evening. I have never retained an attorney in connection with this account. I have never disputed this account directly with Ally. Despite my minimal and non-substantive contact history, Ally Financial has damaged my credit, restricted my account access, attributed legal representation to me that I never retained, and misdirected correspondence intended for others to me all without my knowledge or consent. The following violations are independent of any other complaint or dispute and are based on Ally Financials own records, correspondence, and credit bureau reporting. 1 : INACCURATE DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCY CONTRADICTED BY ALLYS OWN WRITTEN RECORDS All three of my credit bureau reports reflect a Date of First Delinquency of XX/XX/XXXX on the Ally Financial tradeline. This date is factually impossible and is directly contradicted by Ally Financials own records. On XX/XX/XXXX the day before the reported DOFD an Ally Financial customer service agent ( identified as XXXX ) confirmed in a timestamped secure chat exchange that the account carried XXXX past due balance. The exact exchange : XXXX XXXX Consumer asked : but is it current? no past due amount. XXXX XXXX Ally agent responded : It is current as of this time. Bank records from the accounts checking account ( XXXX ) confirm a {$530.00} payment cleared XX/XX/XXXX and a {$540.00} payment cleared XX/XX/XXXX both confirmed successful by Allys own text message system. Ally received {$1000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX. Additionally, Ally Financials own outside legal counsel identified XX/XX/XXXX not XX/XX/XXXX as the first missed payment in written correspondence. This is a second independent Ally source contradicting the reported DOFD. Reporting XX/XX/XXXX as the Date of First Delinquency when Allys own agent certified XXXX past due balance on XX/XX/XXXX and {$1000.00} in payments cleared that same day constitutes reaging in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681c and inaccurate furnishing in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). As co-borrower I have independent standing to assert these violations and have suffered direct credit damage as a result. 2 : PAYMENT HISTORY INACCURACIES, ALLY REJECTED PAYMENTS IT CONFIRMED, THEN REPORTED THOSE MONTHS AS DELINQUENT My credit reports reflect 30-day late designations in multiple months of XXXX. These designations are directly contradicted by a consistent three source pattern in which Allys own portal, Allys own text confirmation system, and XXXX XXXX bank records all show payment activity while Ally simultaneously returned funds and reported those months as delinquent. The conduct described below is Allys, not mine. XX/XX/XXXX : Allys portal shows one payment Completed : {$560.00} on XX/XX/XXXX Allys own system sent payment confirmation notices acknowledging receipt XXXX XXXX records show two subsequent returns : {$560.00} returned XX/XX/XXXX, {$560.00} returned XX/XX/XXXX A third payment of {$560.00} cleared via XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX with no return Ally reported XX/XX/XXXX as a 30-day late month Ally accepted and confirmed payment, then clawed funds back and reported delinquency. The return originated with Ally, not insufficient funds. XX/XX/XXXX : {$560.00} cleared via XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX with no return {$560.00} returned XX/XX/XXXX a second transaction for the same amount returned after the first cleared Allys confirmation system acknowledged the payments Ally reported XX/XX/XXXX as delinquent despite a cleared payment remaining in place XX/XX/XXXX : Allys portal shows {$540.00} confirmed successful on XX/XX/XXXX and {$530.00} confirmed successful on XX/XX/XXXX Allys own text confirmation system sent successful payment notices for both XXXX XXXX records show {$540.00} returned XX/XX/XXXX per Allys own portal notation ; {$530.00} XXXX cleared XX/XX/XXXX with no return Ally reported XX/XX/XXXX as a 30-day late month despite its own confirmation of payments and a cleared XXXX payment remaining on the books In each of these three months, Allys own portal recorded at least one payment as Completed. Allys own system generated confirmation notices. XXXX XXXX records confirm funds were present and transmitted. The returns in each case were initiated by Ally NOT triggered by insufficient funds. Ally then reported those same months as delinquent. Additionally, TransUnions report for XX/XX/XXXX shows Amount Paid of {$520.00} AND a 30-day late rating simultaneously meaning Ally reported receiving a payment in XX/XX/XXXX and rated that same month as delinquent. A month in which payment was received and recorded can not also be a delinquent month. This internal contradiction within Allys own furnished data is inaccurate on its face under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). As co-borrower I have suffered direct credit damage from each inaccurate late designation. These inaccuracies are not attributable to consumer non-payment they reflect Allys own pattern of accepting, confirming, and then returning payments while simultaneously reporting delinquency. VIOLATION 3 : INCONSISTENT DELINQUENCY SEVERITY ACROSS BUREAUS As of XX/XX/XXXX, Ally Financial is reporting the current delinquency status of this account as 150 Days Past Due to XXXX, while reporting 120 Days Past Due to both XXXX and XXXX for the same account in the same month. A single furnisher can not accurately report two materially different delinquency severity levels to different credit bureaus for the same account in the same reporting period. The 30-day discrepancy is verifiable by comparing bureau reports and requires no additional evidence from me. It is direct evidence of inaccurate data furnishing by Ally Financial in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and has caused me direct credit harm through inflated delinquency severity at Experian. VIOLATION 4 : ALLY ATTRIBUTED FALSE ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION TO ME AND SUSPENDED MY ACCOUNT ACCESS WITHOUT BASIS On XX/XX/XXXX, Ally Financial sent me a letter stating I had retained an attorney to represent you in connection with this account. The letter stated Ally would suspend my online payment and automatic payment options pending confirmation of attorney contact information. I have never retained an attorney in connection with this account. I have never informed Ally that I retained an attorney. I have had zero contact with Ally Financial at any point during the life of this account. Ally Financial attributed a legal relationship to me that did not exist and used that false attribution to justify suspending my online payment access. As a direct result of Allys own error, my ability to make payments through Allys portal was suspended and any payment difficulties that resulted flow directly from Allys own false assumption, not from consumer conduct. This constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 12 U.S.C. 5531. Suspending a consumers payment access based on a legal representation that never existed and then reporting the resulting payment difficulties to credit bureaus is precisely the kind of practice the Consumer Financial Protection Act was designed to prevent. VIOLATION 5 : ALLY CONTINUED DIRECT COLLECTION CONTACT AFTER CLAIMING I HAD ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION In the same XX/XX/XXXX letter in which Ally claimed I had retained an attorney, Ally stated it would communicate with me solely through my attorney and would provide account information only to my attorney. Ally then sent me the following direct correspondence after that date : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX reminder notice to XXXX XXXX with collection language : We are attempting to collect the amount our records say you owe us now. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX warranty cancellation response letter to XXXX XXXX Ally can not simultaneously claim I have retained counsel and using that claim to suspend my payment access and continue sending me direct collection correspondence as though no attorney exists. This contradiction demonstrates that the XX/XX/XXXX attorney attribution was not a good-faith administrative action but a pretext used to restrict my account access while maintaining direct collection pressure. This is an unfair, deceptive, and abusive practice in violation of 12 U.S.C. 5531. VIOLATION 6 : ALLY MISDIRECTED ANOTHER CONSUMERS CFPB COMPLAINT RESPONSE TO ME On XX/XX/XXXX, Ally Financial sent me a letter acknowledging a warranty cancellation request with a Cancellation Request Date of XX/XX/XXXX. I did not make a warranty cancellation request on XX/XX/XXXX or at any other time. I have had no contact with Ally Financial. This letter was Allys response to another consumers CFPB complaint filed by the primary account holder which requested warranty cancellation. Ally processed that request and directed their response to me, the co-borrower, rather than to the complainant. As a result I received correspondence containing account information and legal notices that were not intended for me, while the actual complainant received nothing. This misdirection of regulatory complaint responses raises serious concerns about Allys data handling practices and its management of consumer communications during active regulatory proceedings.

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