Consumer complaint received 2024-02-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Application denials
Company: FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: KY

Complaint narrative:
Initial Phase of Solar Loan Application- Dishonest Business Practices & Misrepresentation - Costed Me the Federal Tax Credit We had issues with Dividend Finance from the beginning when the sales rep from Dividend finances contractor-XXXX XXXX XXXX- initially approached my sons family. In XXXX, I co-signed the mortgage for my son to help him secure the house ( on XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX RI XXXX ) he wanted for his family. My sons family qualified for public assistance, their utility bill was NOT a concern. But, your sales rep was not only grossly negligent but also misrepresenting the loan term. My sons family were unaware that the initial phase of payment is interest-only. Your sales rep magically convinced him that a solar roof would be financially beneficial in the long term. The illusion, under false pretenses- little over {$100.00} every month to the loan and barely nothing to the electric company-was instilled in the mind of my sons family. The artificially low monthly payment and the 30 % credit refund out of the {$32000.00} solar system, were two of the strongest selling points. 

The initial application came to a halt as my sons financial situation did not qualify for the loan. The sales rep did not stop at that point. The sales rep advised my son to include me on the contract and assured us that we can still get the tax credit. I agreed to be the co-signer for the solar loan, as usual, just like the home mortgage. It was my understanding at that time that my son was the primary and I was secondary on the application. We trusted the sales reps words that we can still get the tax credit. This understanding was based on verbal assurances, which, in hindsight, were baseless. 

We had hesitations at that time over several concerns, for example, the efficacy of the solar panel. My sons family was promised an in-depth analysis of the system tailored to his households specifics, i.e. utility usage, yearly exposure to sunlight etc, but that presentation never happened. As soon as the loan was approved, the installment team just rushed to install the system in my sons house, before we finalized all the paperwork with no due diligence. Everything happened too fast. 

From my own perspective, I felt I was being rushed into this deal as soon as my son showed interest in getting the solar panel under false pretenses. Later when I filed the complaint, this rapid progression with no thorough review of the documents was used against me. When we filed the application for the solar loan, it was both me and my son. Nobody mentioned there was an issue in the process, and in the end, I didnt know after digitally signing my portion of the agreement, it became just myself on the solar loan. I should not trust the sales rep and the contractor at that time ; they were warm and understanding only because they needed my contract.

I was not aware of the solar loan ownership issue until the following year when my son filed tax return. Because both me and him were on the home mortgage, but my son was not listed on solar loan, thus he was not eligible to get that federal tax credit. Even though I was listed on the loan and the property, I didnt reside in my sons house, thus I was not eligible to get that credit either. Without the {$9800.00} tax credit, the cost of the solar panel system was $ XXXX, instead of $ XXXX. My sons income level simply can not afford this whole system based on its full value. He could not keep up with payment, plus additional electric bills. Since my sons name was not on the loan, it became solely my responsibility. 

It was solely the fault of Dividend Finance that decided to put only my name on the solar loan- which caused me to lose the $ XXXX tax credit. I filed the complaint initially to XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the VP reached out to Dividend Finance. The answer was because Dividend Finances company policy forbids co-signing, only one persons name can be on the loan. But they didnt want to answer how during the process only my name was chosen to be on the loan. There was no one - from Dividend Finance nor XXXX XXXX XXXX gave me the courtesy notice during the application or the final paperwork signing that there were changes in the loan application.Lack of transparency from both companies cost me the federal tax credit. In the end, Dividend Finance was the loan originator, and it is Dividend Finance, who was unyielding, refused to accept any responsibility and refused to propose any remedy. The answer from them was always the consistent NO and their stance on company policy. 


Additional Serious Issues There were further significant problems related to the solar panels and the associated loan. The installment team performed a Botched job on the electric wiring, but refused to rectify the problem. Consequently, the electric bill went skyrocket, particularly during the XXXX period following the initial installment. This resulted in my son incurring a significant higher bill from the electric company. The system failed to do what it promised once again! 

After numerous attempts to seek a resolution without success, we lodged a complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX and Dividend Fiance. Instead of accepting responsibility, these two entities shifted blame onto each other, leaving us without a clear resolution. We didnt know what happened internally in these two companies during this tumultuous period ; however, XXXX XXXX XXXX fired several people, including XXXX XXXX XXXX of the XXXX  managers who was involved in handling my complaint. Ultimately, they refused to annul the contract, or acknowledge any wrongdoing. Had we chosen to return the equipment, we would have been responsible for all associated labor costs and fees. After losing federal tax credit, we could not shoulder further financial losses, forcing us into silence over this flawed and potentially unlawful transaction. 

We received misleading information regarding the loan 's nature and the solar panel 's efficacy. The sales representative employed deceitful tactics to secure the contract, a clear indication of dishonest business practices. Misled by incorrect information and advice, my son and I were unwittingly ensnared in a scheme that should never have occurred. 

Should Dividend Finance attempt to disclaim any association with these issues, it is imperative to recognize that XXXX XXXX XXXX acted as their contractor. Beyond receiving commissions from each new contract, Dividend Finance benefited from an additional XXXX loan, averaging $ XXXX in principal, which yielded interest payments over two decades. As the primary beneficiary of every contract, Dividend Finance should, therefore, assume a greater portion of the responsibility and liability for the ensuing problems. 


Dividend Finance Caused Further Problem During the Sales of House in XXXX When my son decided to sell his house equipped with solar panels, he accepted an offer from a modest, working-class family who were particularly fond of the property. The sales process was smooth until we encountered issues with Dividend Finance. Adhering to the company 's policies, we initially attempted to include the solar loan amount in the house 's selling price. However, the buyers encountered difficulties with their bank in increasing the pre-approved mortgage amount. Consequently, the alternative option explored was for the buyers to assume the solar loan separately from their mortgage. Despite their willingness and after submitting the necessary application to Dividend Finance, the transfer request was denied on the grounds that the potential buyers did not meet the qualification criteria. 

This outcome was perplexing, especially since the buyers had successfully passed all financial assessments through their realtor and the mortgage approval process. At this juncture, my son had already accepted their offer, and considerable investments had been made by both parties to finalize the sale, only to be obstructed by Dividend Finance 's refusal to facilitate the loan transfer. The buyers even proposed a temporary arrangement to make monthly payments directly to me, with a mutual agreement to reapply for the loan transfer once their financial situation improved. 


Dividend Finance Still Denied the Current Home Owners Application to Take over the Solar Loan in XXXX Fast forward to XXXX, the current homeowners re-applied for the loan transfer, only to face rejection from Dividend Finance for the same reasons cited previously. I engaged in multiple discussions with Dividend Finance seeking a viable solution for this unique scenario, suggesting various conventional methods such as securing a co-signer or placing a lien on the property. Nonetheless, Dividend Finance remained intractable, insisting on adherence to their company policy without exception. Consequently, I was notified that the outstanding solar loan balance of $ XXXX was my responsibility to settle, given the ongoing ineligibility of the current homeowners. 

Despite escalating the matter to Dividend Finance 's resolution teampurportedly the highest authority for case reviewtheir response was disappointingly predictable. The resolution team 's reluctance to deviate from their usual procedures left us with no alternative but to fulfill the demand to repay the remaining solar loan balance, further compounded by the property 's change in ownership and the new owners ' continued disqualification for the loan transfer.

Unreasonable and Unjust Company Policy : A Call for Federal Review Dividend Finance has consistently utilized its company policy as a shield for years, particularly through its rigid stance on loan applications and its staunch NO-Co-Signer policy. As a fintech company issuing loans for energy-efficient solutions and advocating for a green economy, Dividend Finance ought to utilize every lawful means to support the average XXXX 's pursuit of energy efficiency. Contrarily, the implementation of a NO-co-signer policy inflicts undue stress and harm on consumers, lacking a justifiable reason from the consumer 's perspective.

Given Dividend Finance 's involvement in providing solar panels and loans, the company inevitably intersects with the housing market and mortgage loans, becoming an integral participant in the sales process of houses. Transactions involving houses can become incredibly complex, imposing exhaustion on both parties involved. A company embedded in energy solutions should not become the impediment in such transactions. It is baffling that a solar loan lender could identify a disqualifying factor in their assessment that prevents a buyer, capable of affording a house with a mortgage, from securing a solar solution with a loan. Worse still, Dividend Finance has consistently declined to offer any form of accommodation to rectify such situations, making it the sole dissenting voice in these transactions. The company must immediately adopt a collaborative stance and integrate effectively within the broader industry.

Ownership of houses frequently extends to multiple individuals, similar to home mortgages. The allowance of co-signers for personal and car loans is common practice, with solar loans often paralleling mortgages. Yet, Dividend Finance has chosen to deviate from industry norms, crafting policies that exclusively benefit the lender at the expense of all other transactional parties. 

My four-year ordeal with Dividend Finance reveals a company indifferent to consumer grievances. The establishment of various departments purportedly addressing complaints resembles a mere spectacle, offering no substantive resolution and serving only to fulfill a legal obligation to provide a resolution service.

Dividend Finance must justify its stringent loan application policies to federal agencies, clarifying the necessity of such practices within this specific industry context, which undeniably impacts consumers negatively. While the company may argue that these policies streamline processes and mitigate default risks, efficiency can not be pursued solely for the lender 's benefit. Should Dividend Finance persist in its current practices without considering consumers or the broader implications, federal intervention becomes imperative to dictate appropriate conduct. 

Despite proclamations of environmental commitment and a " customer-centric '' ethos, Dividend Finance 's actions betray a cold indifference towards those it purports to serve, focusing solely on securing monthly interest payments without concern for its impact. The company 's mission to " improve the outcome for everyone involved '' rings hollow, resembling nothing more than a public relations facade.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation