Consumer complaint received 2025-08-28 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Over a three-month period, I served Ally Financial with five separate certified notices and a commercial affidavit, each providing an opportunity to validate the debt or cure their default. They failed to respond to a single one or rebut the commercial affidavit. This pattern of willful silence constitutes a legal admission under the FCBA and the Rosenthal Act that they can not prove the validity of the debt or the accuracy of their reporting.

This complaint concerns Ally Financial 's ( " Ally '' ) failure to respond to a written dispute challenging the validity of the debt and its subsequent failure to conduct a reasonable investigation before verifying inaccurate information to credit bureaus, in direct violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).

1. Violation of FDBA ( 15 U.S.C. Section 1666 ) - Failure to Respond to a Billing Error Notice : On XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed Ally a written Non-Negotiable Notice of Acceptance via USPS Certified Mail. This document explicitly disputed the validity of the entire debt obligation for account ending in XXXX and requested validation and discharge. Per USPS records, Ally received this notice on XX/XX/XXXX. 

The FCBA requires a creditor to respond to any written communication from a consumer that asserts an error - including a dispute over the validity of a debt- within 30 days. The substance of the communication, not its title, triggers this legal obligation. Ally failed to acknowledge this notice in any way, violating its obligations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1666 ( a ).

2. Violation of FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. Section 1681s-2 ( b ) ) - Furnishing Inaccurate Information and Failure to Investigate : Due to Ally 's incorrect reporting, a derogatory account status appears on my credit report. I disputed this item directly with the credit bureaus. When a furnisher ( Ally ) receives a dispute from a credit bureau, the FCRA requires it to conduct a reasonable investigation, review all relevant information, and report the results back. Ally verified the inaccurate information as accurate. Given that they had received my detailed written dispute months prior and had no valid documentation to support the debt 's validity, their " verification '' was not based on a reasonable investigation. This is a willful violation of their duties as a data furnisher.

3. Pattern of Willful Non-Response and Escalation : Ally 's failure is not an isolated incident. They ignored a total of five formal notices sent via certified mail, each providing an opportunity to cure their default and validate the debt. 

* Non-Negotiable Notice of Acceptance ( Delivered XXXX, XXXX ) * Non-Negotiable Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure ( Delivered XX/XX/XXXX ) * Non-Negotiable Default in Dishonor and Estoppel ( Delivered XX/XX/XXXX ) * Final Notice of Protest and Opportunity to Cure ( Sent XX/XX/XXXX ) * Certificate of Dishonor ( Sent XX/XX/XXXX ) This pattern demonstrates a systemic disregard for its obligations under federal consumer financial law. In retaliation for these disputes, Ally has now falsely reported the account as a " charge-off, '' causing severe ongoing harm to my creditworthiness. 

XXXX. Violation of California XXXX Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX et seq. ) As a creditor collecting its own debt, Ally 's actions violate the XXXX XXXX. Their continued collection activity ( including adverse credit reporting ) on a debt that is disputed and which they have failed to validate constitutes a deceptive and unfair practice under California law.

California Civil Code 1788.13 ( e ) : Using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt. Reporting a charge-off to credit bureaus on a debt that was actively disputed and which they have failed to validate is a deceptive representation of its legal status.

California Civil Code 1788.14 ( f ) : Taking an action to collect a debt that is not permitted by law. Attempting to collect and report on a debt they have legally defaulted on by failing to validate is an action not permitted by law.

California Civil Code 1788.17 ) : Incorporating the federal FDCPA. Allys conduct violates 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), which prohibits continuing collection activity after receiving a written dispute if the debt is not validated. Their continued reporting to credit bureaus is a form of collection activity.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation