Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

M4ximillion

Froggitt wrote: »

So has your mortgage company sent you a letter that says "We consent to some ASG panels on your roof for 25 years"? I woud suggest that is between you and your mortgage company, rather than between ASG and your mortgage company.

ASG provided the letter that went to the mortgage company about our install, me and my hubby signed it, it was then sent by them and when it came back approved ASG offered me an install date. The solicitor at ASG said that every mortgage company has a copy of their lease on file so that they dont have to send a copy every time cause it has already been approved and makes it easier. ASG do it cause their solicitor deals directly with the legal department

Froggitt

I would still want a piece of paper from the mortgage company saying its fine.

What if ASG (or any solarco) said it was approved, but it actually wasnt?

M4ximillion

Froggitt wrote: »

I would still want a piece of paper from the mortgage company saying its fine.

What if ASG (or any solarco) said it was approved, but it actually wasnt?

That would be a daft thing to do cause if their lease isnt valid without consent then they could be asked to remove the panels at any time cause they wouldnt have the right to be there so what we are talking about wouldnt even be an issue would it? Anyway, have spoken to Anne at ASG and she says she'll send me a copy of it .

grahamc2003

M4ximillion wrote: »

ASG provided the letter that went to the mortgage company about our install, me and my hubby signed it, it was then sent by them and when it came back approved ASG offered me an install date. The solicitor at ASG said that every mortgage company has a copy of their lease on file so that they dont have to send a copy every time cause it has already been approved and makes it easier. ASG do it cause their solicitor deals directly with the legal department

Do you have a solicitor looking after your interests in all this?

Anything ASG's solicitor says is looking after ASG's interests.

Anything your mortgage company solicitor says is for the mortgage company's interests.

You are getting entries on and changes to your land registry certificate and it looks like you have no one looking after your interests.

grahamc2003

M4ximillion wrote: »

That would be a daft thing to do cause if their lease isnt valid without consent then they could be asked to remove the panels at any time cause they wouldnt have the right to be there so what we are talking about wouldnt even be an issue would it? Anyway, have spoken to Anne at ASG and she says she'll send me a copy of it .

I think you're getting very mixed up here.

Thousands of people sublet a room with perfectly valid leases without the knowledge or permission of their lenders. It just puts them in breach of their mortgage terms which, if the BS wanted to get stroppy, could cause them major hassle and expense if they found out.

So, you can sign whatever lease you wish, and you couldn't get out of it by somehow saying you were in breach of your mortgage conditions.

I'm not a solicitor, but the above seems pretty obvious to me.

M4ximillion

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Do you have a solicitor looking after your interests in all this?

Anything ASG's solicitor says is looking after ASG's interests.

Anything your mortgage company solicitor says is for the mortgage company's interests.

You are getting entries on and changes to your land registry certificate and it looks like you have no one looking after your interests.

Oh god here we go again, I really wish i'd not come back, forgot how painful it is, like childbirth! Dont worrry im not hanging around. I really dont think i asked anyone if i should be taking advice, think thats my decision. This thread had started talking about not being able to get mortgages on homes with these free solar panels and for me that may have meant a remortgage one day - all i was doing was providing info that seems to blow that one out of the water in that Anne at ASG is willing to provide contacts with every major mortgage company who will confirm that they have no problem with the lease and no problem agreeing to mortgages.

By the way grahamc2003 - i dont own my property, the bank does. At the mo my equity is peanuts. So its not mine, i just pay a ridiculous amount of money for it every month and hope that one day (in about 25 years) it will be mine. So, if my bank is happy for me to have a free system sat on their roof providing me with free leccy, then i am too:D

zeupater

Hi

I wonder whether one of the issues here is that although the mortgage lenders will allow panels to be installed, they could be fussy about lending depending on the level of equity the homeowner has in the property.

There are a number who have posted on the forum who seem to have roofs which are large enough, have an aspect which is well within the requirements and not shaded, yet have been rejected .... is this possibly related to refusal by the financial institutions based on equity levels ??

Regards
Z

grahamc2003

M4ximillion wrote: »

Oh god here we go again, I really wish i'd not come back, forgot how painful it is, like childbirth! Dont worrry im not hanging around. I really dont think i asked anyone if i should be taking advice, think thats my decision. This thread had started talking about not being able to get mortgages on homes with these free solar panels and for me that may have meant a remortgage one day - all i was doing was providing info that seems to blow that one out of the water in that Anne at ASG is willing to provide contacts with every major mortgage company who will confirm that they have no problem with the lease and no problem agreeing to mortgages.

By the way grahamc2003 - i dont own my property, the bank does. At the mo my equity is peanuts. So its not mine, i just pay a ridiculous amount of money for it every month and hope that one day (in about 25 years) it will be mine. So, if my bank is happy for me to have a free system sat on their roof providing me with free leccy, then i am too:D

Well, I'm very sorry that my opinions aren't compliant with your views. I thought the aim of these boards was to let everyone have their say which, naturally, means different opinions will be expressed.

I simply thought it was pretty obvious, at least to me, that having three interested parties changing your land registry certificate with only two of those parties represented with professional advice was perhaps something worth mentioning.

Just as a matter of fact. Judging by what you said in your last paragraph, it is you, and not your bank, which owns your property - just for the avoidance of doubt in case you were serious.

Equaliser123

M4ximillion wrote: »

By the way grahamc2003 - i dont own my property, the bank does. At the mo my equity is peanuts. So its not mine, i just pay a ridiculous amount of money for it every month and hope that one day (in about 25 years) it will be mine. So, if my bank is happy for me to have a free system sat on their roof providing me with free leccy, then i am too:D

Your bank doesn't own the property. It has a charge over it.

Any lease which you grant WOULD be valid as a matter of law and you most certainly WOULD be in breach of the terms of your mortgage unless they have provided their consent to you - not the solar company - YOU.

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I wonder whether one of the issues here is that although the mortgage lenders will allow panels to be installed, they could be fussy about lending depending on the level of equity the homeowner has in the property.

There are a number who have posted on the forum who seem to have roofs which are large enough, have an aspect which is well within the requirements and not shaded, yet have been rejected .... is this possibly related to refusal by the financial institutions based on equity levels ??

Regards
Z

While nothing else has yet explained why some seemingly perfect candidates get refused, I'm not sure whether any mortrgage company would divulge any info at all without the homeowner's permission.

Of course, that permission could be given, along with many other permissions, the first time an applicant signed a document. So do people get refused before signing anything (in which case i doubt it could be the case) or after (in which case what you say could be a very good explanation)?