Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing
Company: Sunlight Financial LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns Sunlight Financial 's origination of a home improvement loan in my name through XXXX XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, and Sunlight 's refusal to investigate that origination after its own intake process placed it on notice of contractor misrepresentation. In XX/XX/XXXX, a XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX # XXXX ) solicited my daughter and me regarding a backyard improvement project at my property. The contractor communicated exclusively with my daughter throughout the financing process. Phone records and text records confirm the contractor never communicated with me directly regarding the financing not regarding loan structure, not to obtain my consent to be designated as a borrower, and not to verify I had authorized any application before it was submitted to Sunlight Financial. On XX/XX/XXXX, the contractor submitted a joint credit application to Sunlight 's platform listing my daughter and me. The contractor represented to us that my daughter would be the primary borrower on the financing. My daughter was credit declined ; I was credit approved. The contractor did not disclose this outcome and did not disclose that the loan would be restructured to place me as the sole borrower. On XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, my daughter and I executed XXXX home improvement contracts with the contractor for installation of artificial turf and pavers at the property, totaling {$65000.00}. Both contracts list both of us as parties. On XX/XX/XXXX, Sunlight conducted a recorded welcome call with me regarding the first loan. During that call, Sunlight itself disclosed information that revealed the XXXX had misrepresented material loan terms including the borrower designation and the payment release timeline. It was through Sunlight 's own welcome call, not through any disclosure from the contractor, that we first learned of the contractor 's misrepresentations. Based on what Sunlight disclosed during the XX/XX/XXXX welcome call, I cancelled the first loan on XX/XX/XXXX. Within hours of that cancellation, the contractor submitted a second credit application to Sunlight 's platform. My daughter was again declined ; I was approved for a XXXX deferred-interest promotional loan. A new XXXX XXXX was generated and electronically signed on XX/XX/XXXX. The second loan funded on XX/XX/XXXX, before project work began. Project work did not start until XX/XX/XXXX and concluded XX/XX/XXXX. Sunlight responded to my prior dispute by letter dated XX/XX/XXXX denying responsibility. Sunlight defends the origination of the second loan on XXXX grounds, each of which fails to address the substantive defect. First, the welcome call Sunlight relies on was associated with the XXXX loan the loan that was cancelled. That call was the call where Sunlight 's own disclosures surfaced contractor misrepresentation and prompted cancellation. Sunlight was on direct, contemporaneous notice as of XX/XX/XXXX that the contractor had misrepresented material loan terms to its borrowers. Despite this notice, Sunlight permitted the same contractor to submit a second credit application within hours of the first loan 's cancellation, originated a second loan on XX/XX/XXXX, and conducted no investigation into the misrepresentations Sunlight 's own welcome call had surfaced. The XXXX loan the loan currently in dispute was originated without any equivalent welcome call or independent verification process directed to me as the borrower. Sunlight 's XX/XX/XXXX letter elides this distinction, describing the XX/XX/XXXX welcome call and the XX/XX/XXXX second loan agreement as if they were part of a continuous verification process. They were not. Second, Sunlight 's response acknowledges that it " can not opine on discussions that may have taken place '' between the consumer and the contractor at point of sale, and directs me to " contact the contractor directly '' regarding misrepresentation. This position is inconsistent with Sunlight 's role as the platform that originated the loan and as the holder of a consumer credit contract arising from the sale of consumer services. Sunlight can not insulate itself from contractor fraud by claiming the misrepresentations occurred outside its direct view, particularly where, as here, Sunlight 's own intake process surfaced those misrepresentations. Third, Sunlight 's reliance on electronic signatures and XXXX identity verification does not address the substantive defect. Identity verification confirms who clicked the button ; it does not confirm informed consent to a borrower designation constructed through contractor misrepresentation. The fact that I correctly answered security questions does not establish that I was informed my daughter had been declined, that the loan structure had been changed from what the contractor represented, or that I had agreed to assume sole responsibility for the financing. The contractor 's misrepresentations operated upstream of the signature process and were not cured by it. The XX/XX/XXXX payment authorization Sunlight relies on was solicited by the contractor under the representation that the project had been completed. Sunlight funded the loan on XX/XX/XXXX based on a payment authorization obtained before any work had been performed at the property. Sunlight has also taken inconsistent positions regarding my daughter 's role. Sunlight 's XX/XX/XXXX letter acknowledges that she was the sole point of contact with the contractor, that she submitted the credit applications, and that the contractor 's communications with her are central to the alleged misrepresentations. Yet Sunlight refuses to communicate substantively with her on the grounds that she is not listed on the loan. Sunlight can not rely on her communications with the contractor as the basis for the loan 's origination while refusing to engage with her on the dispute arising from those same communications.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation