Consumer complaint received 2026-04-12 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — Closing disclosure or other related disclosures
Company: Sunlight Financial LLC
State: MS

Complaint narrative:
am submitting this complaint as a follow-up to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX. This matter involves a home improvement loan in the amount of {$42000.00} that was funded on XX/XX/year> without my authorization and/or after I had been denied credit, and before the work was completed or inspected. A denial dated XX/XX/year> was visible in the lenders system prior to funding. After the loan was funded, that denial was removed from the portal. I was required to request a copy on XX/XX/year>. A second denial dated XX/XX/year> was only delivered by text message and is not available in the system. This demonstrates inconsistent and unreliable recordkeeping. The timeline shows that no valid approval existed at the time of funding : the application was denied on XX/XX/XXXX, documentation was still being requested on XX/XX/XXXX, the loan was funded on XX/XX/XXXX, and the application was again denied on XX/XX/XXXX. At no time did I knowingly authorize a valid loan, and the denial establishes that credit should not have been extended. There were significant failures in underwriting and due diligence. No title search was conducted, no appraisal was performed, no valid lien was properly established, and outstanding property taxes were not verified or resolved. Ownership verification was still ongoing, as the lender ultimately relied on a water bill as proof of ownership. This demonstrates that the application and verification process was not complete at the time of funding. All communication regarding the loan was conducted through the contractor, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, rather than directly with me. I was not directly engaged by the lender to complete or finalize any application. Funds were disbursed based on contractor representations rather than verified completion or inspection. Any alleged authorization should be examined in light of the IP address associated with the transmission of the documents, as the IP address and method of transmission do not match my known access or circumstances and should be reviewed to determine the origin and validity of the alleged authorization. Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide the required three ( 3 ) day notice of the right to cancel, which is a required consumer protection and further calls into question the validity of the transaction. Despite this, the account has been reported as more than 90 days late, has not been properly marked as disputed, and collection activity continues. My credit score dropped from approximately XXXX to XXXX. As a result, I have suffered significant harm, including out-of-pocket repair expenses, delinquency on two XXXX XXXX accounts, exposure to black mold and asbestos siding, a medical incident involving loss of consciousness with resulting lost wages, and severe financial hardship. I experienced utility shutoffs, including water service, loss of phone and internet services, was forced to obtain a title loan on my vehicle, struggled to afford basic necessities including food, and was forced to move into the home despite unsafe conditions due to inability to maintain rent. I have not made any payments on this account because I did not authorize this loan and/or was denied credit. I disputed the account upon discovery and have never accepted it as a valid obligation. I am a senior citizen, and my household includes a veteran, and this situation has caused significant hardship.

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