Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • propinquitas
    • By propinquitas 3rd Dec 17, 11:04 AM
    • 43Posts
    • 27Thanks
    propinquitas
    Removing solar panels
    • #1
    • 3rd Dec 17, 11:04 AM
    Removing solar panels 3rd Dec 17 at 11:04 AM
    Hi, does anyone have any advice or experience they can offer please regarding removing a solar panel system and selling it on?
    We have recently moved to a bungalow with these on the roof and we hate them. We are having a new roof so they would need to be removed regardless, the only difference being is that we won't be putting them back.
    I would like to think they could be of use to someone who would like them.
    I would be grateful for any advice.
    Thank you in advance.
Page 2
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 4th Dec 17, 1:45 PM
    • 3,264 Posts
    • 6,007 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Don't tell me you haven't got a TV licence?! He _will_ get frothy at the mouth. [ibid. MSE TV licence threads].
    Originally posted by silverwhistle
    It is off-topic so I won't dwell on the subject, but yes, ad nauseam, the latest installment was here:-
    You are not allowed to watch scheduled BBC content online or catch up without buying a TV licence Eachpenny.
    Originally posted by House Martin
    I think there should be a crackdown on people who are illegally obtaining their energy, no question about that, but it is the means used which needs to be questioned.

    Technophiles could argue the crime of speeding should be dealt with by fitting smart monitors to everyone's car so anyone breaking a speed limit could look forward to emailed penalty points and a fine before they get home. How many smart meter fans would be supportive of that approach as well?

    Why is the 'solution' to energy theft to impose an unsuitable technology on people who don't wish to have it?

    Persuading the elderly and vunerable to have smart meters by effectively 'tricking' them into thinking an appointment has been made and must be kept is about as low as it is possible to get. A Government which condones, perhaps even encourages, such behaviour has frankly lost all moral authority.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 4th Dec 17, 3:15 PM
    • 27,103 Posts
    • 13,219 Thanks
    Cardew
    I think there should be a crackdown on people who are illegally obtaining their energy, no question about that, but it is the means used which needs to be questioned.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    Without getting into an argument that is probably more suited to a debate in The MoneySaver Arms! I can't agree with you on restricting the means to catch thieves.

    Presumably nobody questions the use of cameras, tags and other high tech to catch shoplifters. After all it is the public who pay in the end.

    The police use high tech to catch uninsured motorists; who add around £50pa on average to motorists premiums. Objections?

    Energy theft is not a victimless crime, other customers pay. What methods do you suggest for a 'crackdown on people who are illegally obtaining their energy'?
    • JC_Derby
    • By JC_Derby 5th Dec 17, 9:47 PM
    • 623 Posts
    • 218 Thanks
    JC_Derby
    Hiya, there is no kWh limit, my 5.58kWp generate between zero and 34kWh per day, with no complaints.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Not strictly true, 3.68kw or <16a per phase may be installed without requesting permission from the DNO however the DNO must still be informed of the installation.
    Over 16a per phase then the installation should be applied for to the DNO.
    Suppliers may pay the FIT, but if an installation is adversely affecting local supplies, then the customer can be told to turn it off by the DNO.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 5th Dec 17, 11:23 PM
    • 3,814 Posts
    • 4,719 Thanks
    zeupater
    Rent a roofers are doing very well and they would nt change it if they had a choice Many have an old analogue meter which will actually run backwards on sunny days deducting units used on the previous nights usage at the same time as crediting the FIT meter.
    so long as the reading never shows a negative on the last reading the suppliers will not twigg and you end up with a virtual zero electric bill.
    The panels sell well on Ebay. As a meter reader I have seen quite a few houses where they increase the panels from the 4 kwh limit without telling the supplier
    Originally posted by House Martin
    Hi

    Not this rubbish again ... , next you'll be praising the quality of excellent British made meters with analogue dials which do run backwards, which you and other meter readers continue to read without reporting unsuitability and are prone to misreading -or- the energy industry refuses to replace on cost grounds, whilst rubbishing analogue meters made abroad which are easier to read without mistakes being made and actually work without reversing according to the requirements made upon the industry by regulation ... the vast majority of meters do not reverse and it is the joint responsibility of the homeowner & the supplier to rectify the situation if a meter reversal is possible ... the homeowner is required to notify the supplier, however, agents of the energy company should also take action & report if they come across meters which are known (or suspected) to be dangerous or non-compliant ...

    Panels prices have dropped significantly, so there's not much value in the pre-owned market compared to potential income ... on a 4kWp early install system the op would be looking to binning somewhere around £35k (at current economics) over the remaining years of the FiT contract, so the details regarding the installation really need to be looked into before making rash decisions ...

    Regarding adding additional panels ... over on the G&E board you'll see plenty of comments regarding generation over a particularly sunny quarter which results in the FiT partner querying the reading and requiring proof of the TGM reading because generation is outside the expected tolerance ... they also have the right to inspect the installation as do the operators of the FiT scheme .... cheating on a contract for financial gain should be treated as fraudulent and dealt with according to the law ... also, being in breach of the terms of the MCS certification should lead to an entry being removed from the MCS database, preventing any further payment being made and likely depriving the 'cheat' of thousands of pounds of income, so it's just not worth the risk ...

    By the way, there is no '4 kwh limit' ... firstly for energy it's 'kWh' not 'kwh', secondly you're describing the nominal generation, therefore it's 'kWp' not 'kwh' and thirdly to approach the limit to which FiT payments apply you'd need a roof-space around the size of a supermarket, so in mentioning '4' you're probably confusing the point where G83 installations need DNO approval or the breakpoint of historical tiered FiT tariffs, which changed significantly some time back ... then again, someone familiar with the energy supply industry should already know this ... shouldn't they?

    And no, before it's raised, I don't really care what the 'Which?' random survey report mentioned years ago or how the newspapers covered the article at the time ... as mentioned previously, it's flawed, outdated and often misrepresented - so irrelevant ...


    # Note to OP .. If your position & posts are genuine, you really do need to think about doing some research before removing the panels .... if it is an early generation installation with a high FiT rate, maybe a 'half-way' option would be to look at replacing the panels with a newer all black panel array of the same capacity, but you would need to check the validity of doing this, asking the question on the G&E board might get some info & opinions on this ... yes it would cost money up front, but potentially flushing £35k down the toilet without giving the situation much forethought doesn't make much sense to me unless you consider it 'small change' ....

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 05-12-2017 at 11:31 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 5th Dec 17, 11:45 PM
    • 3,814 Posts
    • 4,719 Thanks
    zeupater
    Not strictly true, 3.68kw or <16a per phase may be installed without requesting permission from the DNO however the DNO must still be informed of the installation.
    Over 16a per phase then the installation should be applied for to the DNO.
    Suppliers may pay the FIT, but if an installation is adversely affecting local supplies, then the customer can be told to turn it off by the DNO.
    Originally posted by JC_Derby
    Hi

    Don't fall into the same pool of confusion ... 'kwh' is not 'kWh' (a term applied to energy) and 'kw', which is not 'kW' (correct when referring to power), which is not the same as 'kWp' which for solar panels applies to peak power generation potential under strict test conditions ... 'strictly', there is no 'kWh' limit as the logic you have used regarding '16a' (to be pedantic, that's A by the way) takes no regard for time ... and as we all know, you cannot possibly equate energy & power without considering time and therefore 'Martyn1981' is entirely correct ...

    Don't worry too much, we all fall into that dark pool of confusion at some time or other ...

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 05-12-2017 at 11:53 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 6th Dec 17, 1:17 PM
    • 27,103 Posts
    • 13,219 Thanks
    Cardew
    As the OP is in the dark about the panels, and the solicitor hasn't apparently mentioned them, I wonder if the previous owner is still collecting the FIT??

    I understand this is 'legal' (a sort of Rent a Roof arrangement!) but of course to be valid it should have been part of the sale documentation. Also it would not be the solicitor's fault if the vendor didn't mention solar panels to the solicitor.
    Last edited by Cardew; 06-12-2017 at 1:19 PM.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 6th Dec 17, 2:28 PM
    • 3,814 Posts
    • 4,719 Thanks
    zeupater
    As the OP is in the dark about the panels, and the solicitor hasn't apparently mentioned them, I wonder if the previous owner is still collecting the FIT??

    I understand this is 'legal' (a sort of Rent a Roof arrangement!) but of course to be valid it should have been part of the sale documentation. Also it would not be the solicitor's fault if the vendor didn't mention solar panels to the solicitor.
    Originally posted by Cardew
    Hi

    I tend to agree that this is a possibility, but that would point to OP not taking notice during the conveyancing process or the vendor not making full disclosure of the fixtures & fittings, or both solicitors not having standardised lists of those fixtures & fittings which includes solar panels, which shouldn't really happen considering the number of properties which have them fitted ... Every house move we've made has included a visit to our solicitor to review the contract & sign prior to exchange ... it's at this meeting that any issues such as solar panel ownership & transfer documentation should have surfaced & been discussed, just like they would for sundry items such as carpets, curtains etc ...

    If the panels are owned, it's far more likely that the previous owner has simply forgotten to hand over the relevant MCS paperwork, or it has been and the solicitor has lodged it with whatever mortgage company is being used along with the other documentation & property deeds ... whichever, it should be pretty easy to rectify & potentially well worth the effort ...


    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • sevenhills
    • By sevenhills 6th Dec 17, 7:42 PM
    • 757 Posts
    • 268 Thanks
    sevenhills
    I know you probably think we're mad....
    Thanks again for your reply.
    Originally posted by propinquitas
    Yes.

    As the OP is in the dark about the panels, and the solicitor hasn't apparently mentioned them, I wonder if the previous owner is still collecting the FIT??
    Originally posted by Cardew
    He has bought a bungalow that needs a new roof and has solar panels that he hates enough to throw money away. Why would he buy a bungalow like that?
    He bought it without knowing the ownership of the panels and the solicitor and building society not knowing it even had them!

    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 6th Dec 17, 11:05 PM
    • 27,103 Posts
    • 13,219 Thanks
    Cardew

    He has bought a bungalow that needs a new roof and has solar panels that he hates enough to throw money away. Why would he buy a bungalow like that?
    He bought it without knowing the ownership of the panels and the solicitor and building society not knowing it even had them!
    Originally posted by sevenhills
    If the price is cheap enough, lots of people buy properties that need major refurbishment.

    In the OP's case it appears he knew a new roof would be needed. So from his perspective throwing away the solar panels would not be a problem.

    It is obvious from the OP's response that he was unaware of the income potential of those panels; and his solicitor unaware of the panel's existence.

    I find it inconceivable that anyone selling a property with solar panels, that would earn considerable tax free income, would not mention that fact in the sales brochure or in conversation with the potential buyers.

    An explanation as mentioned above is that the vendor intended to keep the FIT payments himself after the sale. If that was the case, obviously he was wrong not to get this included in the contract/deeds.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 7th Dec 17, 1:19 PM
    • 6,137 Posts
    • 10,259 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Not strictly true, 3.68kw or <16a per phase may be installed without requesting permission from the DNO however the DNO must still be informed of the installation.
    Over 16a per phase then the installation should be applied for to the DNO.
    Suppliers may pay the FIT, but if an installation is adversely affecting local supplies, then the customer can be told to turn it off by the DNO.
    Originally posted by JC_Derby
    Hiya, Z has answered the key point. You can install as much PV as you like, you only need permission from the DNO if you want to be able to export (even theoretically) more than 3.68kW. So if your inverter is limited to 3.68kW, then problem sorted.

    Also, best not to mix 3.68kW and 16A, they are not the same. The old rules were 16A, but as voltage varies so much in the UK, it was changed years ago to 3,680W (equal to 16A at a nominal 230V) to prevent greater wattage being exported in high voltage areas/times.

    There is also an old myth that you can't install more than 4kWp of PV, but actually that just relates to the old FiT tariff brackets of 0-4kWp and over 4kWp to 10kWp, so no 4kWp limit, just an issue for consideration. There is now just a 0-10kWp bracket.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • JC_Derby
    • By JC_Derby 8th Dec 17, 7:58 PM
    • 623 Posts
    • 218 Thanks
    JC_Derby
    Hi

    Don't fall into the same pool of confusion ... 'kwh' is not 'kWh' (a term applied to energy) and 'kw', which is not 'kW' (correct when referring to power), which is not the same as 'kWp' which for solar panels applies to peak power generation potential under strict test conditions ... 'strictly', there is no 'kWh' limit as the logic you have used regarding '16a' (to be pedantic, that's A by the way) takes no regard for time ... and as we all know, you cannot possibly equate energy & power without considering time and therefore 'Martyn1981' is entirely correct ...

    Don't worry too much, we all fall into that dark pool of confusion at some time or other ...

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    Haha
    ill admit my laziness in putting capitals in the correct places has even confused myself....I had to read up to see who I was quoting to see the relevance as I didn't mention kWh!
    thank you anyway :-)
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,008Posts Today

6,333Users online

Martin's Twitter