Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

lufc246

beedydad wrote: »

Seems that this thread is getting all mixed up and off topic. Perhaps those who have other issues could start another thread then this one can concentrate on the "free solar" schemes.

I noticed that some posters are now calling them "rent a roof" - that seems not to be the case as actually renting implies that you get a return for what ever you are renting - in this case your roof.

What you actually are getting is a reduction in your electricity bills by something like £50 - £150 per annum (depends whom is quoting but these figures have been widely touted as probably correct). To me that is not a fair rent.

Consider that a householder can rent a room or a garage. I do acually rent a lock up garage and pay £15 per week - £780 pa.

For a room you can get up to £4,000 (I think) per annum £76 per week TAX FREE!!! No hassles on either fronts.

So why oh why do people think it is great deal to rent your roof for peanuts or less??????

Just because this is the offering made by a few companies - they are playing on your emotions (being green) and your financial stupidity (its free!!!!) that you should let them take the bulk of the available FIT monies.

I have suggested before and do again - people ought to re-think this and ask for a real RENT for a roof. I thought before £100 pa might be a starting point but I now believe it should be higher!

Regards

Thats OK but you are not renting your roof out. Officially you are renting out the space above your roof.

zeupater

K4blades wrote: »

According to YOUR earlier figures it would only cost £11million. Make your mind up.

I see that OFGEM today have authorised increases in bills so that the grid infrastructure can be improved.
Maybe they should take Zeupaters approach, sod future supply issues, and slash bills as he seems to be suggessting would happen if FITs weren't around.

He just doesn't get it, and keeps going on about people calculating different levels and different tariffs.
PEOPLE DON'T CARE, THEY JUST WANT TO KNOW IF ITS A SCAM OR NOT, AND IF THEY ONLY SAVE £50.00 OFF THEIR ANNUAL BILLS ITS BETTER THAN NOTHING.
Like I said, if he wasn't so blinded by the chip on his shoulder he would see that.

Hi All

For reference and clarification .... 10,000 installations of 3.3kWp receiving FiT payments at 41.3p/kWh would receive around £11million pa in aggregated revenue.

The 10,000 homes was raised by k4blades and was responded to in the following post .... http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=37149238&postcount=649 ... this is the post being referenced. k4blades has either deliberately posted misleading information, or has failed to recognise that 6000(ASG)+18000(ISIS)+100000(HomeSun) equates to over 100,000 installations and would attract over the £70million he references in re: 'By your own figures, FiTs will cost £11million a year, nothing compared to the £70million that NPower have just been ordered to pay out, another point I raised that you ignored.'

As for the post which immediately follows the one referenced, again, the answer is clear in the original post and a considered read of the post would confirm this ....

Once again, please be assured, I have absolutely no affiliation with the renewables industry and agree that FiTs are a reasonable and sensible way forward. The only points being raised are related to the non aggregation of the total capacity which exist as corporate capital assets to ensure that they attract the appropriate FiT tariff or even be included within more appropriate schemes if the aggregated capacity is greater than 5MWp .....

Regards

beedydad

lufc246 wrote: »

Thats OK but you are not renting your roof out. Officially you are renting out the space above your roof.

Not too sure whether you think it meant "inside" your roof space - rather it is the space on top of your roof not the space above - which seems to imply the air space?

Anyway the point was that many peeps seem to state that you are indeed "renting your roof"!

Regards

Jon_Tiffany

beedydad wrote: »

Not too sure whether you think it meant "inside" your roof space - rather it is the space on top of your roof not the space above - which seems to imply the air space?

Anyway the point was that many peeps seem to state that you are indeed "renting your roof"!

Regards

The point I think he was making is that you were comparing 'renting your roof' with renting a room - the two are quite different.

Renting a room typically means giving up space in your house and extra costs - heating, water, electric etc.

The space on top of your roof typically isnt used for anything, nor do you incurr any extra costs by renting it out.

Cardew

In this context, surely there is no ambiguity in the term 'renting your roof'. No need even for analogies.

You are allowing a firm to install a solar PV system on your property in return for the free use of some of the generated electricity.

beedydad

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

The point I think he was making is that you were comparing 'renting your roof' with renting a room - the two are quite different.

Renting a room typically means giving up space in your house and extra costs - heating, water, electric etc.

The space on top of your roof typically isnt used for anything, nor do you incurr any extra costs by renting it out.

Hi Jon

No it is still valid as i have stated I rent a garage - there is no electricity, water, heating, etc - just the space unused! - just like a roof!!!!

K4blades

I think the analogy is a fair one.

If you want to rent your roof, but don't like these schemes, go ahead.
I would advise you to factor into the rent your legal costs, (for lease, etc). Then insuranse, maintenance, advertising.
Oh and don't forget to get permission from your mortgage company.
But by all means, go ahead and do it, I would love to know how many potential tenants you get and the types of rent you can demand so that I could do it too.

John_Pierpoint

If you lived next door to me, with a perfect south facing roof, I think we might be able to do a deal, especially if I could get the installation costs nearer those paid by the "free" installers.

K4blades

Thats a good idea John, great initiative. Be careful you don't get accused of exploiting a loophole.

zeupater

K4blades wrote: »

Thats a good idea John, great initiative. Be careful you don't get accused of exploiting a loophole.

.... I'm quite sure that John is aware that if he could access installation costs closer to those available to the 'free installers' then the return at 36.1p/kWh would be better than a consumer priced install at 41.3p/kWh, so the difference would just be gain, or loophole enhanced gain ......

John ......, on a similar point, I was recently talking to someone involved with a group of people in a nearby village who have been looking at a multiple household 'heavily discounted' install. They originally had 'silly' prices for the size of project which they were looking at so looked at completely sponsoring MCS for a local electrical contractor ...... strangely the prices of their quotes suddenly and unexplainably fell considerably inline with, if not a little below, with what I would consider as being 'european prices' ....... :rotfl: ....... They are also looking at a community owned turbine as an alternative but are awaiting planning and funding feedback, so nothing is now likely to happen until next year ....

Regards