Consumer complaint received 2025-03-26 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Problem with additional add-on products or services — 
Company: Paramount GR Holdings, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I was forced to pay {$4100.00} out of pocket for roof repairs due to Good Leaps ongoing delays and failure to take timely action. I submitted one estimate to your team in early XX/XX/XXXX, shortly after our initial contact on XX/XX/XXXX. Despite multiple follow-ups, you failed to approve that estimate or take any meaningful action. After months of non-responsiveness, I had no choice but to take matters into my own hands. The other estimates came after I moved forward with the repair processbecause waiting any longer risked serious damage to my home. 

To be absolutely clear : Under the FTC Holder Rule, I am entitled to seek full compensation up to the amount I have paid on the loan. The damage and necessary repairs were directly caused by XXXX XXXX faulty installation, and Good Leap is legally obligated to honor the full cost of those repairs. This is not a situation where partial reimbursement is appropriate or acceptable.

You recently referenced a {$540.00} estimate that you claim was approvedhowever, that estimate became invalid when the contractor backed out, a fact your team was fully aware of. The claim that this amount is still somehow valid is both misleading and disingenuous. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent an email informing you that I had scheduled the roof repairs, stating clearly that I could no longer wait. I also raised a concern for potential mold, as the issue had become urgent due to the ongoing rain. I waited over a monthsince our first contact on XXXX XXXX nothing but stalling and non-responses from your team. 

The repair work was completed on XX/XX/XXXX, after I exhausted every reasonable option to get a response from Good Leap. Had you approved the estimate I provided in August, I would not have had to seek out another contractor or pay the full cost out of pocket. It is not my fault that Good Leap failed to act in good faith and respond responsibly.

As it turns out, the broken shingles were not the only issue. Ive provided photo evidence showing unsecured fastening bolts, raising serious concerns about the quality of Titans installation. These defects went completely unaddressed by Good Leap and brought up another issue : the possibility of mold growth. Because Good Leap failed to rectify this in a timely manner, I am now requesting that an inspection be done for mold, specifically in the attic space above XXXX XXXX where the leak occurred. In the humid XXXX Texas climate, prolonged moisture intrusion creates the ideal conditions for mold, which poses serious health risks. This is yet another consequence of your companys continued refusal to acknowledge responsibility when it mattered most. 

Then, more than XXXX months after the work was completed, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received notice that you had assigned a service provider to evaluate the XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX. This action was clearly too little, too late, and appears to have been an attempt to retroactively demonstrate effort after prolonged inaction. In fact, the so-called assigned service provider did not contact me until XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX after the job was already done. 

Even more troubling is your recent claim that I refused to work with my homeowner 's insurance. I want to be very clear : I explained to your team that filing a claim with my insurance for damage caused by XXXX XXXX faulty installation would constitute fraud. This is not, and never was, an insurance issueit is Good Leaps responsibility as the loan holder under the Holder Rule. 

Attempting to shift blame to me for acting legally and ethicallywhile continuing to evade your own obligationsis entirely unacceptable. 

You also stated : Your first reimbursement request... was a request for reimbursement in the amount of {$2000.00}, due to a sales representative telling you that you paid {$2000.00} for your warranty. This was not a valid request for reimbursement, as there is no documentation stating that this was the case. 

That characterization is inaccurate. That number was provided because Good Leap directly asked me to assign a dollar value to the issue. I clearly stated that I didnt know the exact cost and passed along a rough figure provided by a sales representative. It was not submitted as a formal reimbursement request. Using that against me now, after your team stalled in response to it, only reinforces the bad faith pattern Ive experienced. 

Your ongoing efforts to dismiss or minimize your responsibilities under the Holder Rule are unacceptable. I reminded your team of this legal obligation multiple times, only to be met with continued evasion, delay, and mischaracterization of the facts.

I am demanding full reimbursement of {$4100.00}. This amount reflects the cost of repairs that I was forced to cover because Good Leap failed to act in accordance with the law and with basic customer service standards. In addition, I am formally requesting a mold inspection to address the potential health and safety risks now created by your companys neglect.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation