WebBank solar loan complaints almost always trace back to a fintech partner — but the bank on the contract carries the liability.

Unilaterally stopping payment is risky — it triggers default, hits your credit, and gives the holder a head start on collection. The better move is a three-step sequence: (1) document the non-performance in writing (PTO date vs first-bill date, monitoring data, inspection failures), (2) preserve your right to assert the FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR § 433.2) defense against whoever currently holds the loan, and (3) get a written eligibility review BEFORE you change your payment behavior. TILA § 130 fee-shifting means the lender pays your attorney's fees when you prevail, so qualified disputes do not cost you out of pocket. The eligibility review is the right way to find out if your facts qualify.

Yes, in many fact patterns. The installer's bankruptcy stops claims against that specific entity, but the lender that financed your loan is a separate, usually solvent, target. Under the FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR § 433.2), the lender inherits liability for the same misrepresentations the installer made — false savings projections, fabricated tax-credit math, undisclosed dealer fees, signatures captured without time to read. Recovery under the Holder Rule is typically capped at amounts already paid into the loan, but in solar that frequently runs into the tens of thousands. Many homeowners assume their case dies with the installer and walk away — that is exactly what the lender's collections team hopes for. The eligibility review identifies whether your loan documents trigger Holder Rule liability.

The FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR § 433.2) requires every consumer credit contract that finances goods or services to carry a clause subjecting the lender to all the same claims and defenses the borrower could raise against the seller. Translated to solar: if the installer lied to you, abandoned the install, or never energized the system, those claims travel to whoever currently holds your loan. The rule caps the recovery at amounts already paid into the loan, but in solar that frequently runs into the tens of thousands. The Holder Rule is the single most important lever a homeowner has when the original installer is bankrupt or unreachable — it lets you press the case against a solvent target instead of a corporate shell.

Deadlines vary by claim type and state, and missing them is irreversible. As a rough primer: federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) damages claims usually run 1 year from the violation; TILA rescission is up to 3 years; the FTC Holder Rule cap is amounts paid; state Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) statutes typically run 2 to 4 years (Texas DTPA = 2 from discovery, Florida FDUTPA = 4, California CLRA = 3, North Carolina UDTPA = 4, with treble damages mandatory). FTC Holder Rule defenses to a lender's collection action have no statute of limitations on the defense itself — meaning if the holder sues you, you can raise installer-fraud defenses regardless of age. Do not guess at your deadline. The eligibility review computes the live limitations window for your specific loan and state in two minutes.

GoodLeap (formerly Loanpal) does not hold a bank charter. To originate consumer loans, GoodLeap partners with WebBank, a Utah industrial bank, which acts as the bank-of-record. GoodLeap handles marketing, underwriting, and the customer-facing brand; WebBank issues the actual credit and holds the regulatory charter. That arrangement is legal and common in fintech, but it has consequences: WebBank as the named creditor on your TIL disclosure carries TILA and FTC Holder Rule responsibilities for whatever was promised in WebBank's name.

Often, yes — and the answer depends on the claim. TILA disclosure claims attach to the named creditor, which on your loan documents is typically WebBank. UDAP and fraud claims arising from the in-home sales conversation can run against the installer, GoodLeap as the marketer, and WebBank as the originating bank under various theories. A consumer-protection attorney reviewing your specific paper will identify which defendants give the best path to recovery; in many cases, the answer is all three.

The FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR § 433) requires every consumer credit contract that finances goods or services to carry a clause subjecting the lender to all the same claims and defenses the borrower could raise against the seller. Translated to solar: if the installer lied to you, abandoned the install, or never energized the system, those claims travel to whoever currently holds your loan. The rule caps the recovery at amounts already paid into the loan, but in solar that frequently runs into the tens of thousands. The Holder Rule is the single most important lever a homeowner has when the original installer is bankrupt or unreachable.

Yes. The installer's bankruptcy stops claims against that specific entity, but the lender that financed your loan is a separate, usually solvent, target. Under the FTC Holder Rule, the lender inherits liability for the same misrepresentations the installer made. Many homeowners assume their case dies with the installer and walk away — that is the result the lender's collections team is hoping for. The right move is to identify who currently holds your note and pursue the lender, not the dead installer.

Usually it opens a faster one. Most solar finance agreements force the homeowner into individual arbitration through JAMS or AAA. Lenders wrote those clauses to block class actions, but for an individual claimant the clause has a side effect they did not advertise: the lender pays the arbitration filing fee, your case is heard on its specific facts, and consumer-protection arbitrators tend to credit the kind of digital-signature, recording, and language-mismatch evidence that gets diluted in mass class settlements. Arbitration is often the higher-recovery path for the individual homeowner.

Check your Truth in Lending disclosure (TILA box) — specifically the 'Amount Financed' line. If that number is 20-30% higher than the system price the salesperson quoted, you almost certainly have an undisclosed dealer fee. For example, a $25,000 system becomes a $32,500 loan. The fee is paid by the lender to the installer at closing and buried in your loan principal, meaning you pay interest on it for 20-25 years. Request an itemized breakdown from the lender in writing; TILA requires accurate disclosure of finance charges.

Do not stop paying without legal guidance. The loan is with the lender (GoodLeap, Dividend, Mosaic, etc.), not the installer — and missed payments will damage your credit and may trigger acceleration (the full balance becomes due immediately). The correct approach is to assert your claims against the lender through the FTC Holder Rule or state UDAP statutes while continuing to pay, or under explicit advice from an attorney who has reviewed your case. Some homeowners negotiate payment suspensions during active disputes, but this requires formal legal action.

If the installer files Chapter 7 (liquidation), the warranty is effectively worthless — there is no entity left to honor it. If the installer files Chapter 11 (reorganization), warranties may continue but service quality often degrades. In either case, the value of the lost warranty can be asserted as damages against the lender under the FTC Holder Rule. Document the original warranty terms, get repair quotes from third-party solar companies, and include the cost of a replacement warranty in your claim.

Statutes of limitations vary by state and legal theory, typically ranging from 2-6 years from the date you discovered (or should have discovered) the fraud. State UDAP statutes often have 2-4 year limits; TILA claims have a 1-year limit for damages but can be raised as a defense at any time. The clock usually starts when the fraud was or should have been discovered — not when you signed the contract. Because these deadlines vary dramatically and can be complex to calculate, consulting an attorney promptly is essential.

It depends on the type of obligation. Solar loans (unsecured or UCC-1 secured) typically can be paid off at closing like any other debt — but if the payoff exceeds the system's value, you may need to bring cash to closing. Solar PPAs and leases transfer to the buyer, who must qualify; many buyers refuse homes with long-term PPA obligations. PACE assessments are the worst case — they attach as a property tax lien and many lenders (FHA, VA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) will not approve loans on homes with outstanding PACE assessments. If a UCC-1 fixture filing appears on your title unexpectedly, challenge it through the process at [our UCC guide](/blog/remove-unauthorized-ucc-1-step-by-step).

Some solar fraud rises to the level of criminal conduct — forgery (fake signatures), theft by deception, or criminal fraud. However, most solar disputes are civil matters handled through state consumer protection laws, not criminal prosecution. File complaints with your state AG and local law enforcement; the AG's consumer protection division can investigate pattern misconduct. Civil claims (suing for damages, loan cancellation, or rescission) are typically faster and more likely to produce recovery than waiting for criminal charges.

Solar Panel Scam Center charges nothing to review your situation. If your case has merit, we connect you with an independent consumer-protection attorney whose practice covers solar finance. Those attorneys typically work on contingency or under fee-shifting statutes — meaning you pay nothing out of pocket, and the defendant covers attorney's fees if you prevail under TILA, the FTC Holder Rule, or your state's UDAP. We are not a law firm; submitting an intake does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship.

Solar Panel Scam Center is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any of the companies named on this site. Company names appear in a descriptive, factual context to identify the entities consumers are searching for and asking us about. This is nominative fair use under U.S. trademark law. Nothing on this page is legal advice or creates an attorney-client relationship.