Consumer complaint received 2026-04-06 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Getting the loan — 
Company: Paramount GR Holdings, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
In XXXX, a solar loan was issued by GoodLeap in connection with a residential solar installation arranged through a third-party contractor ( XXXX, formerly XXXX ). The primary borrower was elderly and in declining health at the time of origination and XXXX XXXX in XXXX. I am the co-borrower responsible for addressing the account. From the outset, the transaction involved material misrepresentations. Representations were made regarding system performance, expected energy savings, and financial benefits, including rebates and tax-related incentives, which were not realized. The overall financial obligation associated with the loan also appears inconsistent with what was initially represented. In XX/XX/XXXX, I formally raised a dispute with GoodLeap. The dispute involves misrepresentation at the point of sale, a system that did not function as represented, and installation-related roof damage. After installation, the system did not provide any measurable or realized benefit. To my knowledge, it was never confirmed to be fully operational in a way that delivered usable energy or resulted in any actual benefit to the property. Roof damage occurred in the same areas where the solar panels were installed. Photographic documentation was provided showing the damage aligned with the panel locations, and repairs were required. Despite this, GoodLeap stated it could not determine causation and has not taken responsibility. On XX/XX/XXXX, these issues were clearly communicated to GoodLeap in writing. Despite this, the company has repeatedly stated that these issues were not previously raised, which is inaccurate. The company has also attempted to merge a separate issue involving the correction of an improperly filed XXXX XXXX with the broader dispute. The XXXX matter was identified and corrected and is unrelated to the underlying dispute regarding misrepresentation, system performance, and property damage. In response to a prior CFPB complaint, GoodLeap stated that a designated representative would work directly with me to resolve the matter. However, this has not occurred. Communications have been inconsistent and delayed, and responses are typically only received after repeated follow-up attempts. In multiple instances, extended periods passed without any response, requiring additional outreach to obtain even a basic reply. Since XX/XX/XXXX, I have made multiple attempts to resolve this matter through written communication and follow-ups. The company has failed to provide timely or substantive responses and has not engaged in a meaningful effort to resolve the dispute. GoodLeap has relied on internal production summaries to support its position but has not provided verifiable documentation demonstrating that the system was fully operational, connected to the grid, or delivering usable energy. No documentation has been provided confirming interconnection approval ( Permission to Operate ) or evidence of energy being credited through the serving utility. The absence of this verification is material to determining whether the system was operational as represented. Instead of addressing the documented issues, the company has repeatedly offered settlement options without resolving the underlying problems. After requesting a clear, substantiated response and the findings of the companys internal review, GoodLeap failed to provide the requested documentation and did not respond further. This complaint is being submitted because GoodLeap has failed to properly investigate, document, and resolve a dispute involving misrepresentation, system non-performance, and installation-related property damage.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation