Consumer complaint received 2024-11-08 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Im filing a complaint against Ally Bank for mishandling my disputes regarding unauthorized transactions on my account. I reported XXXX unauthorized charges that I was charged on XX/XX/XXXX and reported on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX after my phone and debit card were stolen. These charges amounted to {$1700.00}, and despite providing clear evidence that these were fraudulent, Ally Bank denied my disputes without proper investigation. 

The charges included XXXX XXXX withdrawals for {$1000.00} ( XXXX withdrawals of {$300.00} and XXXX of {$100.00} ) and an additional XXXX charge for {$720.00}. I was shocked when Ally Bank denied all XXXX of my disputes, claiming I had an established relationship with the merchants involved. This decision is completely wrong, and heres why : XXXX Withdrawals No Relationship : The XXXX XXXX withdrawals were made at a XXXX located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ive never used my debit card at this XXXX location or had any prior transactions there. When I spoke to the representative, I told them that I was familiar with XXXX, but I had never used my card there, nor do I have any relationship with them. It doesnt make sense that Ally would deny my dispute based on a claim of a relationship that clearly doesnt exist. If they had done a proper investigation, they should have been able to see that this was an obvious case of fraud. 

XXXX Dormant Account and No Connection : I want to address the XXXX charge, because Allys reasoning here is especially troubling. Yes, I did have a XXXX account in XXXX, but its been dormant for over XXXX years. I havent used it since then. If Ally had properly investigated this, they would have easily been able to verify that the XXXX charge was made through an account that was not linked to me or this account. The account that made the charge wasnt connected to my current financial accounts, and any investigation would have shown that. The account that made the purchase was likely tied to the thiefs information, which strongly suggests fraud. If Ally really looked into the details of the XXXX transaction or contacted XXXX directly for help, they would have clearly seen the connection to the theft, not a legitimate relationship with me or my former account. The fact that Ally ignored this possibility and instead chose to claim a relationship based on no solid evidence is completely unreasonable. 

Clear Statement to the Representative : When I first reported the unauthorized charges, I made it clear to the representative that while I was familiar with XXXX, I had no prior transactions or relationship with them. I also stated that I didnt have a relationship with XXXX for a long time, especially considering I hadnt used the account in over XXXX years. This should have been taken into account when Ally decided to deny my dispute. Yet, their decision completely ignored this information, which raises serious questions about the adequacy of their investigation. 

Inadequate Investigation : XXXX decision was based on an established relationship with the merchants, but this claim is fundamentally flawed and unsupported. Their reasoning doesnt hold up, and they failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the facts. They didnt consider the obvious signs of fraud, such as my phone and card being stolen, the fact that the XXXX account was old and dormant, while they most likely didnt even gain access to that information or any and based there decision, and the fact that Ive never had any transactions with the XXXX location XXXX question. Ally also failed to follow up on the clear signs of fraud in the XXXX charge, despite the fact that it could have been easily traced to a separate account, probably linked to the thiefs information. 

In sum, Ally Bank denied my dispute without proper investigation and based their decision on completely incorrect reasoning. Their actions are a clear violation of the protections under Regulation E, which requires banks to conduct a fair and thorough investigation into unauthorized transactions.

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