Risk-Free Promotional Offer Available Now - Click Here to Book

A homeowner with no prior solar experience was approached at home by a sales manager for a solar company, who spent hours pitching a rooftop system for her nearly 19‑year‑old roof. He promised that the system would virtually eliminate her power bill, that she would pay only a small metering fee, and that everything would be handled through a long‑term lease with a national solar provider. Relying on those assurances, she signed the electronic lease the salesperson put in front of her. She was not given a realistic chance to understand the age‑related risks to her roof, the true cost and length of the lease, or the implications if things went wrong.

What followed was a cascade of problems. The installers failed to obtain proper permits and took months to get the system connected to the grid. The system was installed on a roof already near the end of its useful life, contrary to the provider’s own public statements about only installing on “solar‑ready” roofs and aligning system warranties with roof life. When she specifically asked about the roof age, she was assured it was “no problem” and told that when the roof eventually needed replacement, the company would remove and reinstall the panels at no extra cost—only to later be told she would have to pay a substantial per‑panel charge. After installation, her sprinkler pump was removed and reinstalled improperly, her roof began to leak, and eventually part of the ceiling collapsed, forcing her to hire a contractor to repair the damage herself. An expert later concluded the installation caused significant damage, and the total cost of repairs and roof/solar work approached fifty thousand dollars.

Meanwhile, the financial benefits never materialized. The salesperson had said her monthly electricity bill would drop to a small, fixed amount and that he would cover the first year of utility bills, with excess production even generating credits. In reality, her utility costs remained the same or higher than before, and she now also faced a monthly lease payment to the solar provider, leaving her paying more overall for energy rather than less. The system only functioned for a few months and has been inoperative since late 2025, yet the provider continues to demand lease payments for decades to come, while also having claimed the tax incentive associated with the system.

When she requested her file from the installer and the national provider—seeking documentation on permitting, inspection, system performance, and any “confirmation of operability” before funding—both entities simply ignored her written requests. That refusal deprived her of records she is entitled to and undermined her ability to fully investigate her rights under consumer‑finance, disclosure, and home‑solicitation laws. We reframed the situation from a “non‑payment” issue into a comprehensive case involving: negligent installation on an aged roof; a system that barely operated and then failed; misrepresentations about energy savings, tax benefits, and roof suitability; refusal to release basic account and project documentation; and attempts to enforce a long‑term lease despite serious statutory, contractual, and tortious violations. The relief sought includes cancellation of the lease, termination of any collection efforts, removal of negative credit entries and security interests, reimbursement of all lease payments, and full compensation for the considerable cost of repairing the roof, interior damage, and related systems.

The finance company has come back with a counter-offer.

A brother and sister were approached at home by a solar salesperson promoting a large rooftop system for their older house. They were told their home “needed” an unusually large array of panels and that they would receive a substantial tax credit on a coming tax return. On the back of these assurances, a long‑term solar lease was set up in two stages: an initial lease document and a later amendment, together committing them to roughly two hundred thousand dollars’ worth of payments over about twenty‑five years. They were never given a straightforward opportunity to understand the full scope or cost of the obligation before being locked in.

From there, the situation deteriorated. When the family later tried to obtain their file from the lessor and the installer, both refused to provide it. That meant no copies of the full contracts, no internal “contract validation call” records, and no transparency about how the deal had been approved or transferred to the current creditor. At the same time, a detailed review of the electronic signature records revealed that one sibling’s signature had apparently been forged: the DocuSign logs showed implausible email addresses, identical IP information for both signers, and time‑stamps so tight that they suggested rapid, device‑driven auto‑signature rather than genuine review and consent. To make matters worse, the sibling whose name was used as primary applicant did not even own the home and did not meet the lessor’s own internal criteria for a proper lessee or co‑signer.

The physical work on the home was just as problematic. The system was installed on a roof that was visibly at the end of its life, and an independent inspection later found serious installation defects and extensive damage attributable to the solar work. The cost to remedy that damage alone was estimated in the tens of thousands of dollars, with the homeowners now having to hire a separate roofing contractor to repair what should never have been done in the first place. Meanwhile, the promised tax benefit never materialized—it was illusory from the outset given the structure of the deal—and the family continued to face lease demands on a system whose benefits did not match the aggressive sales pitch.

We reframed the matter from a simple “payment dispute” into a multi‑layered case of fraud and consumer abuse. We built the claim around: (1) forged or unauthorised electronic signatures on high‑value lease documents; (2) aggressive in‑home solicitation for an oversized, unnecessary system on an aged roof; (3) refusal to provide basic account documentation and validation records; (4) negligent installation causing major property damage; and (5) misleading promises about tax credits and long‑term savings that never materialised. We treated the sales company, the installer, and the current lessor as components of a single business model and pursued cancellation of the lease, cessation of any collection efforts, removal of negative credit and security interests, reimbursement of all payments, and recovery of the substantial repair costs.

Currently under advisement.

A elderly homeowner, who could not read English, was approached at home by salespeople promoting a rooftop solar system for his older house. He was told the system would wipe out his power bill, that he would receive a substantial tax credit the following year, and that everything would be “taken care of” through a long‑term loan with a specialist finance company. Because he had no email address and could not navigate electronic documents, the sales team allegedly created a fake email account in his name and used it to e‑sign a finance contract and related paperwork without his knowledge or consent. He never saw, read, or signed the documents that now underpin a large, long‑term debt in his name.

The project itself never delivered any of the promised benefits. The installer failed to obtain the necessary permits, so the system was never properly inspected, turned on, or connected to the grid; it has never produced usable power. The promised tax benefit was impossible from the outset because the homeowner’s limited income meant he was not even in a position to claim it, yet he still found himself facing monthly loan demands on a system that never operated. On top of this, he continued to receive regular electricity bills and now faces a substantial claimed balance for a product that has given him literally nothing in return.

When the homeowner tried to get answers, the finance company refused to release his file. Because the only email address on record is the one fraudulently created by the salesperson, standard “identity verification” procedures became a Catch‑22: he cannot confirm an email address he never knew existed, and without that, he cannot access the very records that would prove the fraud—such as electronic signature logs, IP addresses, and confirmation‑call details that never involved him. Written requests and formal complaints were ignored, leaving him unable to see the contract, the disclosure terms, or any documentation of how the deal was supposedly closed.

We reframed the situation from “missed payments” into a serious pattern of misconduct. We built the case around: (1) a forged or unauthorised electronic signature on key loan documents; (2) aggressive in‑home solicitation of a vulnerable, elderly, non‑English‑speaking consumer; (3) failure to obtain permits, resulting in a system that has never operated; (4) illusory promises about tax benefits and bill elimination that could never have been realised on his income; (5) refusal by the lender to release basic account records; and (6) ongoing attempts to collect on a long‑term debt for a completely non‑functional system. The  theories engaged include unfair and deceptive practices, misleading advertising, fraud in the inducement and execution, violations of consumer‑finance and e‑signature requirements, and the fundamental rule that no one is bound by a contract they never signed or authorised.

Critically, we treat the sales organisation and the lender as parts of a single business model: one side secures high‑pressure door‑to‑door deals with vulnerable homeowners, and the other side locks those homeowners into long‑term finance—then hides behind paperwork and “policy” when things go wrong. The homeowner’s demands are straightforward: recognition that the contract is void, cancellation of all payment obligations, removal of any security interests and negative credit reporting, reimbursement of all payments made, and a robust litigation‑hold preserving all electronic and physical evidence for potential regulatory and legal action. This matter shows that even where a consumer appears trapped by a signed electronic contract, there can be powerful arguments to unwind fraudulent and abusive solar financing arrangements, especially when vulnerable or elderly homeowners are targeted.

The finance company is considering our proposal - the client is willing to fight this as long as it takes to get out of this nightmare.

A couple were approached at home by a contractor selling a rooftop solar package for their aging roof. They were promised that the system would wipe out their power bill, that they would receive a large tax credit the following year, and that everything would be handled seamlessly through a long‑term loan arranged with a specialist finance company. They were rushed through signing two electronic documents on the spot—one styled as a loan agreement, the other as an installation contract—without any real chance to read them, reflect, or obtain advice, and without being told about any cooling‑off or cancellation rights.

What followed was a textbook example of how not to treat consumers. The installer never obtained the necessary permits, so the system was never connected to the grid and never produced any usable power. The promised tax benefit never arrived, and their monthly utility bills actually increased rather than decreased. Years later, with the system still inoperable and mounted on a 20‑year‑old roof, the couple had the panels removed entirely. Yet the finance company, fully aware that the system had never been operational, began demanding payments on a multi‑decade loan for equipment that had never worked.

When the couple started asking questions, they ran into a wall. Repeated written requests for their own account file produced virtually nothing, depriving them of basic information about how funds were disbursed, how the deal had been closed, and who knew what and when. At the same time, the installer had gone out of business. On paper, the lender tried to distance itself, but in practice it had acted as the exclusive financier for the contractor’s solar projects, forming part of a closed‑loop sales and funding model: the contractor secured the high‑pressure in‑home sale, and the lender locked customers into long‑term debt, even when promised performance never materialized.  We  reframed the entire dispute. We treated the installer and lender as two arms of a single business enterprise and built a case around: (1) aggressive in‑home solicitation and rushed e‑signature practices; (2) failure to disclose and honour cancellation rights; (3) deceptive promises about bill elimination and tax benefits; (4) a system that never operated because of missing permits and improper installation on an aged roof; (5) refusal to provide basic account records; and (6) ongoing attempts to collect on a loan for a completely non‑functional system. We grounded these facts in a wide range of legal theories, including unfair and deceptive practices, misleading advertising, federal disclosure and e‑signature rules, fraud in the inducement, and breach of contract and warranty.

The clients’ demands were clear: formal cancellation of the agreements, removal of any security interests and negative credit reporting, a refund of all payments already made, and full preservation of all relevant documents and data through a rigorous litigation‑hold notice. By combining expert knowledge of consumer‑finance, solar, and home‑improvement, the case sends a strong signal: even when the installer has vanished and the lender insists “a contract is a contract,” consumers are not stuck—strategic action can shift the leverage back where it belongs.

The finance company is now in negotiations with us, stay tuned!

A homeowner was solicited at their residence in March 2020 by a sales representative who promoted a solar panel system costing over $40,000, promising elimination of electricity bills except for a metering fee and a $10,500 tax credit. Relying on these representations, the homeowner signed contracts for purchase, installation, and 25-year financing through a credit union. However, the installation was negligent, rendering the system basically non-functioning and even worse causing extensive roof leaks, ceiling damage, mold, and making the home partially uninhabitable. Despite evidence provided, including photos of damage and communications, the companies ignored his complaints, failed to fix his property and even refused to fix the almost entirely inoperable system. The system failed to connect properly to the grid, produced insufficient energy, and did not deliver promised savings, leading to continued high utility bills.  Extensive proof in support was provided, using our exclusive questionnaire that goes into meticulous detail to uncover every possible manner to attack the shady businesses' reprehensible practices and compel prompt and total resolution of the ongoing dispute.  The client alleged violations such as home solicitation breaches, unfair business practices, fraud, breach of contract, and construction negligence, claiming the entities operated as a joint enterprise and demanded contract cancellation, cessation of payments, reimbursement of approximately $12,000 in prior loan payments, and compensation for property damages and repairs. A spoliation notice was also issued for the preservation of evidence, with a warning of firm action to be taken if not resolved amicably and without any further delay.

In negotiations...watch this space.  *****Update, in March 2026, client obtained full relief!****