Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

M4ximillion

Cardew wrote: »

How do you deduce 'it helped'? It might have put off several people!!

One house was advertised as these panels provided electricity worth £400+ about 4 times more than most people will achieve.

All the 'doubters' have pointed out is that there are possible pitfalls to the 'rent a roof' scheme and the rewards are not that good.

The ASG scheme seems to be one of the better systems and they don't expect you to pay £500 and £5 a month.

If you read it again Cardew they say that the house had been on the market a long time and they were going to take it off the market altogether which is why they did some additions to it like the solar panels, but then it sold, because the new owners wanted them.

zeupater

M4ximillion wrote: »

If you read it again Cardew they say that the house had been on the market a long time and they were going to take it off the market altogether which is why they did some additions to it like the solar panels, but then it sold, because the new owners wanted them.

Hi

It's also strange to see that no mention was made of whether the eventual selling price was highly discounted or not. The ASG article includes 'additions to the house which included the solar panels', suggesting that other work was also done, which, following the advice of all of the 'home improvement' TV programs could consist of anything from a new lick of paint to total redecoration, a new kitchen & bathroom etc etc ...... but of course, as we dont know the detail there is definate marketing advantage in claiming 'It was the solar that finally sold it' .....

Cardew

M4ximillion wrote: »

If you read it again Cardew they say that the house had been on the market a long time and they were going to take it off the market altogether which is why they did some additions to it like the solar panels, but then it sold, because the new owners wanted them.

The new owners might have wanted solar panels;. However I ask again how do you know that other potential buyers were not put off by the panels?

All that has shown is that a house with the panels has sold. Also if it this one shown on this site some while ago, on vastly inflated estimates of potential savings.

grahamc2003

I doubt any 'doubters' (as m4 puts it, and what exactly is 'doubted?) have changed their views one iota by the sale of a house with 'free' panels on. I don't think M4 is really following what those who wish to present a fair view of all the risks and rewards of these 'free' systems are saying at all.

There is a risk (an unknown risk, maybe high maybe low, no one yet knows) that during the 26 year lease, buyers (not all, but some) may (not will or won't) be put off buying a house where they are forced to take on the lease negotiated by others.

I've read every post on this thread, and I have never read anyone saying not one house would sell with this system (the only possible case for M4's deductions from the sale making any sense).

In probabilities, before you can make any projections at all, you have to have a representative sample of data - and one house isn't that. At the moment, and probably for the next few years, all we can say is that the risk of these free panels on a house regarding the saleability of the property throught the lease term is unquantifiable, and not zero as m4 (for the second time) implies.

Nobody is saying 'Don't have a free system due to this unknown risk' (as I think some are implying we are). What is being said is 'here is a risk, and it's sensible to evaluate or take into account all risks and rewards when deciding on a 'free' system' rather than going in blind.

K4blades

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Nobody is saying 'Don't have a free system due to this unknown risk' (as I think some are implying we are). What is being said is 'here is a risk, and it's sensible to evaluate or take into account all risks and rewards when deciding on a 'free' system' rather than going in blind.

Always good advice.
And if its good advice you want, go to someone who knows what they are talking about, and subject to that risk, rather than someone who could be accused of scare-mongering. Almost all the banks and building societies accept the "rent a roof" panels, so don't see it as a risk to their asset. If they did see it as a risk, they would not allow it. I am aware of one, maybe 2, that were less keen and even they are coming round to the idea. In their opinion, their asset, the home, is not being de-valued, and though the banks aren't perfect, who's opinion is more likely to be correct?

What was it you said about broken legs and doctors??

grahamc2003

K4, I've now decided, like others previously, that your views seem incompatible with informed discussion so won't be replying further, not least of all because you, for some extremely strange reason, appear to think that anyone who disagrees with your very biased view on things, is 'scaremongering' - here is another example.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=39120416&postcount=1558

K4blades

I was simply pointing out that your view on property values is different to that of the banks, who I would imagine are more informed.
Maybe you choose not to reply because you can't accept someone
else's views, or are you so arrogant that you think you are right and the banks are wrong.
Either way, I don't care if you don't reply, everyone else can see for themselves, if only you and what were referred to as the usual suspects, only allowed other people to express those views without your stuck up views, suggesting that people who take advantage of the rent a roof schemes are all being duped...
I have just as much right as you to post on here, and if you don't like my views don't read them, or by all means, don't respond, but I will continue to point out when your comments, in my opinion, are wrong.

zeupater

K4blades wrote: »

I was simply pointing out that your view on property values is different to that of the banks, who I would imagine are more informed.
Maybe you choose not to reply because you can't accept someone
else's views, or are you so arrogant that you think you are right and the banks are wrong.
Either way, I don't care if you don't reply, everyone else can see for themselves, if only you and what were referred to as the usual suspects, only allowed other people to express those views without your stuck up views, suggesting that people who take advantage of the rent a roof schemes are all being duped...
I have just as much right as you to post on here, and if you don't like my views don't read them, or by all means, don't respond, but I will continue to point out when your comments, in my opinion, are wrong.

Hi

You'll probably find that the banks would see the risk mainly being offset against the customer's own equity in the property ... it's possible that in situations where the customer equity is too low the bank might see a risk to themselves and veto ......

Cardew

K4blades wrote: »

I was simply pointing out that your view on property values is different to that of the banks, who I would imagine are more informed.
Maybe you choose not to reply because you can't accept someone
else's views, or are you so arrogant that you think you are right and the banks are wrong.
Either way, I don't care if you don't reply, everyone else can see for themselves, if only you and what were referred to as the usual suspects, only allowed other people to express those views without your stuck up views, suggesting that people who take advantage of the rent a roof schemes are all being duped...
I have just as much right as you to post on here, and if you don't like my views don't read them, or by all means, don't respond, but I will continue to point out when your comments, in my opinion, are wrong.

Since when are you the spokesperson for the Banks?

I think that Graham is not in the slightest bit arrogant and presents balanced arguments on this subject - as does zeupater.

Several of us(presumably those you term the usual suspects?) are trying to put the potential savings into perspective and point out some possible disadvantages of legally renting out your roof for 25 years for what we consider meagre rewards.

On the strength of one house with ASG panels selling, you have concluded that they are attractive to future buyers and now you appear to speak for the banks.

K4blades

Perfect, as if to prove my point, absolutely perfect.

Firstly, "the usual suspects" was not my term, it was used earlier in the thread by someone else, which suggests something????

Secondly, I do not and have never claimed to speak for the banks.

The opinion has been expressed that the rent a roof schemes might be a risk that de-values your property. I was simply offering the opposite opinion. My opinion is based on the FACT that, almost without exception, the banks do not see the scheme as a risk, at a time when they are being very risk averse, particularly with mortgages.
What is your opinion based upon, other than the fact that you don't like these schemes. Prey, do tell?
I have every right to post my opinion on here, just like any of you. But when ever an opinion is offered that you don't like you all act like a group of bullies trying to take over the school yard. Well tough, If I see an opinion I disagree with I will continue to post and explain my views where I can, and other readers can make their own minds up, so why don't you go and sulk somewhere else.
I would bet my own mortgage on the fact that none of you will answer the above question...what is your opinion of house valuation based upon......or are you just scare-mongering.