Consumer complaint received 2025-08-12 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Charged fees or interest you didn't expect — 
Company: Paramount GR Holdings, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
# NEW CFPB Complaint - Post-Complaint Bad Faith Conduct * * Complainant : * * XXXX XXXX ( 100 % XXXX Veteran ) * * Companies : * * GoodLeap LLC and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) * * Issue : * * Bad Faith Handling of Federal Complaint and Coordinated Document Manipulation # # Nature of This Complaint This complaint addresses NEW violations that occurred AFTER my initial XX/XX/XXXX 2025 CFPB complaint ( # XXXX ). Following GoodLeap 's formal response, both companies engaged in coordinated bad faith conduct that demonstrates ongoing regulatory violations and potential document manipulation. 

Background - Original Complaint Context I filed a CFPB complaint on XX/XX/XXXX2025, regarding a {$59000.00} solar loan that represents a 48 % XXXX % markup over documented market rates of $ XXXX {$40000.00}. The original complaint documented Truth in Lending Act and UDAAP violations related to hidden markup fees and coordinated concealment between GoodLeap ( lender ) and XXXX XXXX ( installer, now XXXX XXXX ). 

NEW Violations - Post-Complaint Bad Faith Conduct 1. Suspicious Documentation Timeline * * * * GoodLeap 's Response Timeline : * * - * * Letter Dated : * * XX/XX/XXXX 2025 - * * Postmarked : * * XX/XX/XXXX2025 ( 3-day delay ) - * * My Phone Call : * * XX/XX/XXXX2025 ( 5 days after letter date ) * * Violation : * * GoodLeap dated their formal CFPB response 5 days BEFORE our phone conversation, suggesting pre-drafted responses rather than genuine investigation into my complaint. 

* * 2. Coordinated Admission of Concealment * * * * GoodLeap 's Written Admission ( XX/XX/XXXX2025 ) : * * * '' XXXX was not able to provide any such documentation '' * for cost breakdown * * XXXX XXXX 's Verbal Admission ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : * * Customer service representative XXXX XXXX immediately stated * '' we don't have that information '' * * * Violation : * * Both companies now admit they can not explain what comprises my {$59000.00} charge, confirming the systematic concealment I originally alleged while offering no resolution. 

* * 3. Bad Faith Deflection During Complaint Process * * * * Phone Call with GoodLeap ( XX/XX/XXXX, 2025 ) : * * - 45-minute call with Client Support Manager XXXX XXXX - No resolution offered despite clear regulatory violations - Directed me to contact XXXX XXXX for information GoodLeap should possess - Admitted coordinating with installer by messaging them about my call * * Violation : * * Using federal complaint process to engage in additional deflection rather than addressing documented violations.

# # # * * 4. Complete Stonewalling by Installer * * * * Professional Request to XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX2025 ) : * * - Sent comprehensive written request to department manager XXXX XXXX - Set reasonable 10-business-day timeline - Included legal context and professional communication * * Result : * * 10+ business days of complete silence with no response whatsoever * * Violation : * * Coordinated refusal to provide basic transaction information during federal complaint process.

# # Evidence of Ongoing Coordination * * Despite claiming to work " separately, '' evidence shows continued coordination : * * 1. * * Shared Guidelines : * * GoodLeap admits pricing was " consistent with XXXX and GoodLeap 's guidelines '' 2. * * Active Communication : * * XXXX XXXX messaged XXXX XXXX about my complaint call 3. * * Coordinated Responses : * * Both companies immediately admit they don't have cost information 4. * * XXXX XXXX : * * Neither company can explain {$59000.00} in charges # # Truth in Lending Act Violations- Post-Complaint * * 12 CFR 1026.18 ( e ) - Ongoing Violation : * * GoodLeap 's admission that they can not explain what they financed demonstrates ongoing TILA violations. As the lender, they are required to know and disclose all finance charges, yet they admit complete ignorance of what comprises the {$59000.00} loan amount.

# # UDAAP Violations- Post-Complaint Conduct * * 12 U.S.C. 5531 - New Violations : * * * * Unfair Practices : * * - Using federal complaint process to engage in further deflection - Coordinated stonewalling between companies during investigation * * Deceptive Practices : * * - Pre-dating responses to appear more responsive - Claiming to work " separately '' while demonstrating active coordination - Directing complainant to seek information from parties who admittedly don't have it * * Abusive Practices : * * - Systematically frustrating legitimate federal complaint process - Continued targeting of XXXX veteran with procedural obstacles # # Pattern of Veteran Targeting As a 100 % XXXX veteran, the post-complaint conduct suggests systematic targeting : - Excessive markups ( 2.5-5x higher than XXXX  XXXX case averages ) - Procedural obstacles during complaint process - Coordinated bad faith responses designed to frustrate resolution This may constitute discrimination under Equal Credit Opportunity Act protections for XXXX veterans receiving VA compensation. 

# # Impact on Federal Complaint Process The companies ' post-complaint conduct undermines the integrity of the CFPB complaint process by : - Using complaint procedures to engage in additional violations - Coordinating to provide misleading timeline information - Systematically refusing to address documented violations - Creating procedural obstacles designed to frustrate legitimate complaints # # Comparison to Enforcement Precedent * * Minnesota Attorney General v. GoodLeap ( 2024 ) : * * - Settlement : {$35.00} XXXX for similar practices - Average markup : 19.32 % - My markup : 48 % -103 % ( 2.5-5x worse )- Same pattern : Coordinated concealment, now with added bad faith complaint handling # # Specific Harms from Post-Complaint Conduct * * Additional Damages from Bad Faith Handling : * * 1. * * Time and Effort : * * 45-minute call, multiple follow-ups, professional written requests 2. * * Procedural Frustration : * * Systematic obstruction of federal complaint process XXXX. * * Continued Financial Harm : * * No resolution to underlying {$65000.00} in documented violations 4. * * Reputational Harm : * * Public complaint database entry without company good faith efforts # # Requested Relief * * Immediate Action : * * - Investigation into document timeline manipulation - Enforcement action against coordinated bad faith conduct - Requirement that both companies provide cost breakdowns within 15 days * * Financial Relief : * * - Original {$65000.00} restitution for underlying violations- Additional penalties for bad faith complaint handling - Compensation for time and effort spent on post-complaint stonewalling * * Systemic Relief : * * - Industry guidance requiring transparency in solar lending - Enforcement standards for complaint process participation - Protection against retaliation for filing legitimate complaints # # Supporting Evidence - GoodLeap formal response dated XX/XX/XXXX2025 ( received XX/XX/XXXX ) - Complete timeline of post-complaint interactions - Email to XXXX XXXX with 10+ days of non-response - Documentation of coordinated admissions from both companies # # Conclusion The companies ' post-complaint conduct demonstrates ongoing regulatory violations and systematic bad faith that undermines the federal complaint process. Their coordinated inability to explain {$59000.00} in charges, combined with procedural obstruction and suspicious documentation practices, requires immediate CFPB enforcement action. 

As a XXXX veteran who followed proper complaint procedures in good faith, I should not be subjected to additional violations and systematic stonewalling during the federal complaint process. The evidence shows these companies view CFPB complaints as opportunities for further violations rather than genuine resolution processes. 

I respectfully request immediate investigation and enforcement action to address both the underlying lending violations and the companies ' bad faith conduct during the federal complaint process.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation