Consumer complaint received 2019-02-21
Company: GreenSky, LLC
State: FL
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: False statements or representation
Sub-issue: Attempted to collect wrong amount

Complaint:
My home sustained roof damage as a result of hurricane Irma and was in need of a complete roof replacement. I had contacted a local roofing contractor XXXX XXXX to come to my home and provide an estimate on roof replacement. 

On XX/XX/XXXX a Mr. XXXX XXXX employee of XXXX XXXX met with me and my wife and provided an estimate to tear off the damaged roof replace any plywood or framing the was not in good condition and install a Class 90 hurricane resistant metal roof engineered to withstand a Category Five Hurricane with a lifetime warranty. The cost of this tear off and replacement roof was {$27000.00}. XXXX XXXX works with a financial company named Green Sky located in XXXX Georgia and they are often used by XXXX customers to finance their roofs. 

A credit check was ran by XXXX finding that my wife and I do qualify for the loan to replace the roof at which point we signed a contract and made an agreement with Green Sky for a home repair loan at 6.99 percent interest. We then signed a contract with XXXX XXXX to do the work. The expense of the roof was high however since it was a Class 90 roof engineered to withstand a major hurricane and came with a lifetime guarantee I believed it was a good investment since I reside so close to the Florida coast. I wanted my residence to meet the higher wind load standards of XXXX Florida ( XXXX County ) rather then the lower standards of XXXX County where I live. 

Work started about the first week of XX/XX/XXXX the old roof was removed plywood and fascia was repaired after which the building department inspected the framing and approved it. At this point a crew was brought in to install the metal roof. The metal roof was completed on XX/XX/XXXX however unbeknownst to me XXXX XXXX had contacted Green Sky and had already requested final payment several days before completion of the roof. 

On XXXX the roof was inspected by Building Inspector XXXX XXXX of the City of XXXX Building Department, at which point it failed inspection and received a red tag violation due to improper installation which did not match the plans submitted by XXXX XXXX to the City of XXXX Building Department. I spoke to XXXX who explained the issue was that they used approximately one half of the fasteners/screws needed to install the roof based upon their plans which had been submitted to the Building Department. XXXX further advised that the fasteners that were installed were not installed in the specific patter as on those plans. I contacted XXXX XXXX by phone that day and made them aware that the roof had failed inspection. 

On XXXX Inspector XXXX XXXX arrived for the second inspection of the roof however there had been no change/work done on the roof since the first inspection at which point the roof again failed inspection. I spoke with the XXXX concerning the reason that the roof failed inspection he explained to me that the plans submitted by XXXX XXXX required that the fasteners/screws should have been placed on both sides of the ribs in the metal to attach it to the roof. 

At this point it appeared obvious that something was not right being concerned that I may have been the victim of a scam I started doing some investigation into what paperwork had been submitted for the roof. The plans submitted by XXXX XXXX contained information from a structural engineer named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in this documentation there are two methods of attachment indicated method one is similar to what XXXX XXXX used to install the metal on the roof. Method one is engineered to provide the roof with the ability to withstand up to 52.5 pounds per square foot of uplift on the metal roof. Method two was engineered to provide the roof with the ability to withstand up to 105 pounds per square foot of uplift. XXXX XXXX had indicated that method two was the instillation method they planned to use. The roof installed on my residence was method one which is not engineered to withstand a Category Five Hurricane. 


I contacted Green Sky via phone speaking to one of their Customer Service Reprehensive and requested that my account be frozen to insure that XXXX XXXX did not receive the final payment. At this point I learned that XXXX XXXX requested payment on XXXX, and received payment on XXXX. It should be noted that XXXX XXXX did not complete the instillation until XXXX. They had requested and received payment while construction was underway and prior to the job passing inspection. 

I did not give authorization or even have knowledge that the final payment had been made. I had authorized the first payment to XXXX XXXX who assured me that all payments would require my authorization before funds were released. Upon receiving the contract from Green Sky it explained that in order to authorize payment I would need to provide XXXX XXXX with my loan/account number combined with the expiration date for the load window of the contract. I never shared this information with XXXX XXXX or any other person. 

Later I would learn that when XXXX XXXX submitted the information to Green Sky that he receives the loan/account number and the expiration date. At the time I did not know that all XXXX had to do was logon to Green Sky via a computer with said information and receive payment. I was under the impression that I would have to contact Green Sky to authorize the release of funds/payment. 

As such they did not install the roof according to the plans they submitted. I had the opportunity to discuss over the phone the engineering information with Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX at which point I discovered that he has no association whatsoever with XXXX XXXX. XXXX further advised that the method of installation used by XXXX XXXX was not a Class 90 Roof and was not engineered to withstand a Category Five Hurricane I contacted Green Sky financing and filed a complaint with them by phone ( XXXX ) my compliant was assigned case number XXXX. I explained to Green Sky that I did not have any knowledge and never gave authorization to release the final payment / draw to XXXX XXXX. I requested that the final payment / draw be removed from my account and the balance be adjusted to reflect only the first authorized payment / draw on my account.

As of the date of this compliant I have repaid Green Sky {$6300.00} on my account I am not try to cheat them out of their money, however they have refused to correct my account balance and are holding me responsible for the unauthorized final payment / draw. By supplying XXXX XXXX with the information needed for them to get paid XXXX XXXX had the ability to obtain full payment at any time during or before construction. This leaves me with no leverage to compel XXXX XXXX to correct their work, and I am burden with a loan I did not authorize. 

I had contracted for a roof that met XXXX County, Florida standards which are higher then the standard required in central Florida where I live. Regardless of the roof installed on my residence I NEVER AUTHORIZED THE FINAL PAYMENT / DRAW TO XXXX XXXX and I will not be held responsible for it as stated in the contract with Green Sky. 

In addition to not receiving the roof I contracted for the life time warranty is in question sine the Owner / Operator XXXX XXXX is currently in XXXX after he engaged in a XXXX XXXX and is XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Thank you for any assistance you may provide with this matter.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation