Consumer complaint received 2026-06-01 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services — Billing dispute for services
Company: Garrison Investment Group
State: KS

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/XXXX, my husband and I contracted with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX for the replacement of nine windows at our home located in XXXX, Kansas. The total financed amount was {$22000.00} through Foundation XXXX XXXX. The contract clearly specified 3-over-1 colonial grid windows. The windows delivered were incorrect they arrived as 6-over-1 configurations, which is a completely different product than what was contracted and paid for. XXXX attempted to correct the error by sending replacement tops for the windows. During this correction process, two windows sustained cosmetic damage and two additional windows were rendered completely non-functional they no longer close properly. Non-operable windows represent not only a cosmetic defect but a functional, safety, and weatherproofing failure. At no point did we have the correctly specified, fully functional windows we contracted for. Before these issues could be resolved, XXXX XXXX XXXX went out of business in late XX/XX/XXXX, leaving us with defective, non-functional windows and no contractor to complete the work. We immediately opened a dispute ticket, which Foundation XXXX XXXX own records reflect was opened XX/XX/XXXX. Foundation XXXX XXXX subsequently contacted us requesting a repair estimate. Due to our rural location in a small Kansas town, it took considerable time to obtain a contractor willing to assess the damage and provide a quote. The estimate was received XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$3100.00}, which we promptly submitted to Foundation XXXX XXXX. Foundation XXXX XXXX has refused to provide information to us that they actually paid XXXX for the windows prior to them going out of business. Because of the same, there is no way to know if Foundation XXXX XXXX is having us pay them for something they never paid for- which is also problematic. Throughout this entire period, Foundation XXXX XXXX has been reporting our account as delinquent to the credit bureaus, despite our account being in active, documented dispute. We have never disputed the existence of the debt we dispute that payment was legitimately due on a product that was never correctly or fully delivered. Foundation XXXX XXXX has cited a Satisfactory Completion and Installation Certificate dated XX/XX/XXXX as the basis for declaring the project substantially complete and triggering our payment obligation. We have the following objections to the validity of this document as a payment trigger : 1. The certificate was dated XX/XX/XXXX prior to our dispute ticket being opened XX/XX/XXXX meaning the windows were already known to be defective at the time of signing. The document itself contains a bold warning stating buyers should not sign until all services have been satisfactorily performed and materials received. That condition was not met. 2. The document contains a Notice to Buyer stating that home repair contractors are prohibited by law from requesting or accepting a completion certificate prior to actual completion of the work. The work was not complete at the time this certificate was presented. 3. My husband signed the certificate under explicit instruction from the XXXX representative to acknowledge delivery only and to note the defects which he did. This was a conditional, notated acknowledgment of defective delivery, not a certification of satisfactory completion. 4. I am a co-borrower on this account and did not sign the certificate. The co-buyer signature line is blank. 5. The Dealer Acknowledgement section, in which the dealer certifies all goods and services were delivered in a workmanlike manner, contains only initials rather than a proper dealer signature. When we raised these deficiencies with Foundation XXXX XXXX, their representative responded in writing that the completion certificate is not legally binding and is for internal use only. However, Foundation XXXX XXXX simultaneously continues to use that same document as the legal basis for triggering our payment obligation and justifying adverse credit reporting. A document can not be both legally meaningless and the contractual trigger for payment obligations. This is contradictory and fundamentally unfair to us as consumers. Foundation XXXX XXXX has offered two resolution options : a principal reduction of {$3100.00} ( the repair estimate amount ) or a reduced interest rate. Neither option includes removal of the adverse credit reporting. We have requested in good faith and in writing on multiple occasions that the late payment reporting be removed, as we are not delinquent borrowers we are consumers in active dispute over a defective product that was never correctly delivered. Foundation XXXX XXXX has refused both requests.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation