Consumer complaint received 2024-11-08 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Problem with the payoff process at the end of the loan — 
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I. Our Genuine attempt to work with the merchant and fix the problem : XXXX ( the lender ) has asked us for five consecutive years to work with XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( the merchant ) to address our concerns with regard to installation of the windows we purchased more than five years ago by securing a loan from XXXX ( please see the loan agreement as attached ). Here are the detailed actions taken by us to work with the merchant to fix the problem. 

1. On the day of the installation, which was a very hot and humid day ( XX/XX/XXXX ), neither the installation manger nor the salesperson was present. The two workers had much difficulty installing the window and the door. The window and the door did not fit in the cavities, which were created as the result of removing the existing window and the door. The workers did their best, while constantly complaining about the weather. The railings where the window and the door open and shut were mostly stuck and they were not flowing smoothly. Please see the attached sheet provided to us by the merchant. It shows how important the window installation is. The installation was faulty, and the door and the window appear to be used with incorrect exact measurements. 

2. The workers gave us the completion check out sheet to sign that the work is properly completed, and all standards are met. We refused to sign the sheet. The merchant or the lender can not produce this signed sheet from us, which is a normal thing to do upon the work completion. 

3. We began to contact the merchant and its salesperson rather immediately after the installation. They were not responsive, while claiming leaving many messages which did not exit. After several weeks of contacting the merchant and the sales rep, they sent the installation manger to the site. XXXX, the installation manager, came to our house to examine the works. He was disappointed in the works performed. This was clear from his expressions and the words he was uttering. He took at least XXXX pictures on his XXXX and took extensive notes. He said he would talk to the general manger, XXXX XXXX XXXX about this poor installation. Please see our notes immediately after the installation and our attempt to get help from the merchant to fix the poor installation. The merchant never shared with us the notes and pictures taken by XXXX, the installation manger. The merchant later denied having any records about our installations and problems thereof. 

4. After our extensive and unsuccessful attempts in good faith to get the merchant to replace the poor installation, we sued the merchant in XXXX XXXX, Missouri for {$5000.00} in the small claims court. The merchant refused to accept the summons and lied about not accepting the summons. Please see the court documents for our litigation against the merchant. 

After months and years later and upon the insistence of the lender, we contacted the merchant again. Here is the summary of our conversations : 5. It has been more than five long years since we had these windows installed. The merchant has taken no action to correct the faulty installations. The merchant failed to follow up and replace the windows.

6. We contacted the merchant again, based on the recommendation of the lender, and in the last-ditch effort to convince the merchant to replace their faulty and fraudulent installations. The General Manger, XXXX XXXX XXXX, stated in his email that he is not aware of any problems with their installations on our site. The General Manger stated that they have no records or memory of any installation problems at our address. Then XXXX XXXX backtracked once we provided documentation to him to show otherwise. Please see our email exchange with the general manager.

7. We provided documentation and information about the merchant installations and our attempts to get the merchant to fix the windows. The merchant refused to give credit for faulty installations or replace the windows. The General Manger stated that he would send someone to fix something. He also stated in writing that this will be my last response. Please see the email exchanges by the general manger who is the highest authority in the merchants company. 

8. Four or five years later a representative from the merchant called our home to follow up with the idea of the general manger to fix something at our windows. This phone call was initiated by the insistence and coordination of the lender with the merchant. The merchant had no plans to replace the windows. This was a ploy and ruse by the merchant to offer a band-aid solution to a faulty and fraudulent installation. Many people replace their windows after four or five years in a fast-pacing technological changes in this area. It would have been impossible to distinguish between the normal wear and tear of the windows and the faulty installation after five years of the use. This was a disingenuous scheme concocted by the merchant and the lender to dissolve the responsibility of the merchant and to continue with the fraudulent loan by the lender. 

We have paid a significant portion of this fraudulent contract. This paragraph comes directly from the loan agreement that the lender has given us : If you are dissatisfied with the goods or services that you have purchased with your Loan, and you have tried in good faith to correct the problem with the Merchant, you may have the right not to pay the remaining amount due on the purchase. 
The merchant installed faulty window/door. This has nothing to do with the limited warranty. This is fraudulent business activity. The loan secured on this fraudulent business activity is a fraud as well. We have no intention of paying more money on this fraud. 

II. Our contacts with the lender and statements made by the lender We have provided the lender with all our documents, rationale, and explanations many times. There seems to be a lack of interest and total disconnect from the reality by the lender. The lender wishes for us to make additional payments regardless of what the facts of the case are. There is absolutory no logic, rationale, and reasoning that we can provide for the lender to be persuaded otherwise. Please note the following : XXXX. XXXX states that Unfortunately, XXXX can not guarantee customer satisfaction with respect the quality of the goods and services provided by the home improvement Merchant as XXXX is the customers loan servicer. In the same letter XXXX claims that there were minor infractions. These statements are contradictory in nature. It shows collusion or at least a coordination between the lender and the merchant to deprive the customer of his rights of having a quality product that the loan supposed to provide. This statement also is completely contradictory to the report given by XXXX, the installation manager to the general manger of the merchant indicating that there were substantial problems in our installations. 

XXXX. XXXX is a loan company with heavy and unrelenting pressures on its customers to pay their loan. They use phone calls, email messages, and online pressure tactics to force customer to pay. How it this possible for XXXX to agree and offer a XXXX percent interest rates to its customers? What benefit does XXXX gain by offering a XXXX  percent loan to its customers? Even the basic processing of loan paperwork costs an extensive amount of money for XXXX. The merchant ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) charged us nearly {$13000.00} for installing two windows. A part of this money is given to XXXX by the merchant as interests on this loan. This is clearly the under-the-table collusion between the lender and the merchant to take advantage of the unsuspecting customers. The merchant raises the price for the customer so that some of this increase can be shared by XXXX. This is a sample of how these two companies operate and coordinate. 

XXXX. We would like to re-empathize the egregious nature of the misrepresentation made by XXXX about the projects completion form with our signature that the lender claimed to possess. This is a falsehood. There is no such document. We never signed the form indicating our displeasure of the window installation. WE ASK THAT CFPB TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THIS MAJOR FALSIFICATION OF THE FACTS. THIS SHOULD GO TO THE HEART OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE LENDER. 

XXXX. XXXX, after more than five years, from the date of installation still wants us to work with the merchant to fix the problem. The merchant wants to make a cosmetic and band-aid fix to absolve itself from the faulty installation after doing nothing about faulty installation for over five years. XXXX wants the customer to work in perpetuity with the merchant until our loan is completely paid off. Neither the lender ( XXXX ) nor the merchant ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) wants to take responsibility for their actions. They wish for the customer to have no rights by having a faulty installation and paying a tremendous amount of money. 

XXXX. XXXX supports the merchant ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), and the merchant ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) supports XXXX. This is a collusion. The merchant ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) brings business for XXXX. XXXX brings business for merchant ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) by awarding loans to unsuspecting customers. There is a conflict of interests in this scheme. XXXX supports the faulty installation of the merchant ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) by giving them the latitude to make cosmetic corrections and to avoid responsibility even after over XXXX years of our honest attempts to get a resolution to this problem. The merchant ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) supports XXXX not to write off the remaining balance of the loan so that they give more business to XXXX. This is the collusion whereby the mutual support and benefit by the lender and the merchant given to each other in detriment to the borrower. 

XXXX policy states that IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THE GOODS OR SERVICES THAT YOU HAVE PURCHASED WITH YOUR LOAN, AND YOU HAVE TRIED IN GOOD FAITH TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM WITH THE MERCHANT, YOU MAY HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO PAY THE REMAINING AMOUNT DUE ON THE PURCHASE. This policy clearly pertains to our case. XXXX refuses to seriously engage in the subject matter with us. XXXX has offered nothing new and has not responded to the points we raised in our statements. We respectfully ask the CONSUMER FINANCIAL CREDIT BUREAU to support our case and hold XXXX responsible for the remainder of the loan. 

Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX p.s. CFPB action against XXXX In XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered XXXX to cancel up to {$9.00} XXXX in loans and pay a {$2.00} XXXX penalty for " enabling contractors and other merchants to take out loans on behalf of thousands of consumers who did not request or authorize them, '' according to a news release from the CFPB. The loans ranged in amount from a few XXXX to tens of thousands of dollars. 
According to the CFPB, XXXX received at least XXXX complaints between XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX from consumers who said they had a loan with XXXX, but didn't authorize an application for one. Internally, XXXX found that in at least XXXX instances, merchants that use XXXX were at fault. 
The company failed to incorporate controls into the loan application and funding processes that would have prevented unauthorized borrowing, the CFPB 's news release said. It also lacked merchant training and oversight and failed to effectively manage consumer complaints about the issue.

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