Consumer complaint received 2019-12-20
Company: GreenSky, LLC
State: MD
Product: Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan
Sub-product: Personal line of credit
Issue: Getting a line of credit

Complaint:
Green Sky, LLC ( https : //www.greensky.com/ ) lending in corporation with XXXX  XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), an XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) authorized provider of consumer security systems, had me sign paperwork to enter into an agreement with GreenSky , LLC for an extensive line of credit worth thousands of dollars without my knowledge under the pretense that I was only financing two smoke detectors for {$190.00} each ( not including tax and installation ). 

The XXXX/XXXX  XXXX  provider indicated that XXXX does not " sell '' smoke detectors. Instead GreenSky , LLC lending purchases the smoke detectors and finances the purchases, while XXXX does the monitoring. I was told by the XXXX XXXX representative that GreenSky , LLC lending would send me a monthly bill for {$11.00} for 36 months at 0 interest either online via the GreenSky portal or I could request a paper copy of the monthly bill through XXXX. This {$11.00} would cover the cost of financing for the two smoke detectors. 

So, I financed the purchase of XXXX smoke detectors. Within an hour after installation, I got a congratulatory notice via email from GreenSky stating that I got approved for and entered into an agreement with them for an {$8500.00} line of credit at a monthly billing cycle of {$230.00}. Additionally, within the same hour, I also received a bill from XXXX XXXX for {$420.00} for the two smoke detectors. 
Several things were wrong with this marketing : 1. I was only told about the cost of the two smoke detectors, not the line of credit nor its amount. The line of credit GreenSky took out on me was {$8500.00} ; however, the cost of the two smoke detectors was {$420.00}. The disparity clearly takes advantage of a consumer 's ability to preserve his/her financial liquidity. 

2. GreenSky determined the amount of the line of credit. During the XXXX   XXXX marketing discussion, I was not able to negotiate the line of credit GreenSky took out, nor did I enter any numeric dollar amount on the keypad which would have allowed me to control the amount of the line of credit. 

3. The line of credit GreenSky took out was extensive and would clearly impact on the amount of available credit I would have access to for other issues moving forward in the future. 

4. When I contacted GreenSky, their representative stated that the agreement I entered into with did not allow me to lower my line of credit comparable to the purchase of the two smoke detectors. The representative stated, " by law '' I had to take out a line of credit totaling {$3500.00} dollars based on the loan product. 

Within the hour of purchasing my agreement, I immediately cancelled my loan, notified XXXX  XXXX and XXXX headquarters. I forwarded documentation of my double billing to a XXXX  XXXX representative and manager and communicated my concern to two other XXXX  managers, one of which was at headquarters in the XXXX  XXXX XXXX, CA corporate office. 

I also had to call GreenSky twice because the first time I called, they merely deactivated my account instead of actually cancelling it. The second time I called, I stayed on the phone until I received an email from a GreenSky representative stating that my account was indeed cancelled. When I researched GreenSky on the XXXX XXXX XXXX  website, there was a pending Government Action regarding fraudulent behavior against consumers. 

If I had not cancelled my line of credit and loan agreement with GreenSky, both XXXX XXXX and GreenSky would have double billed me. Moreover, the {$230.00} invoice from GreenSky looked like a bill, so savvy consumers would have difficulty distinguishing between a monthly invoice for a line of credit ( that may not even be used ) and the $ XXXX  monthly bill for the two smoke detectors. 

It was communicated to me by a XXXX XXXX manager that this scheme was being implemented via partnership between GreenSky and XXXX XXXX as a " pilot program. ''

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