Free solar panel discussion

Equaliser123

Zenoka wrote: »

First thing is, I would not sign up with a company that puts a charge on your property. All that is needed is for the lease to be registered at the land registry, there is no need what so ever for a charge.

Legally, the rent a roof company has the right to use your roof space for 25 years. When/if you decide to sell the new buyer will have to take on the remainder of the lease, this should be no different to any other form of lease and is fairly common.

Hope that helps!

A lease is an encumbrance under a superior lease of a freehold title....

It isn't at all common to sell a domestic property subject to an existing lease unless it is an investment property.

John_Pierpoint

Thus putting any potential purchaser or mortgagee on notice that someone else has an interest in the property.

Slightly more onerous than discovering that next door's drains run underneath the garden.

Equaliser123

Zenoka wrote: »

A charge is what a lender/mortgage company will place on your property to protect their stake in the property. You could argue that when you have a mortgage its really the bank that own your house. So a charge will protect a lenders financial stake in the property to ensure they can get their money back if you sell. I think sometimes the courts can impose a charge following a CCJ.

For the free solar companies they have not put any money into your property, they are just leasing the roof. Any leases greater than 7 years must be registered at the land registry. As they are taking a 25 year lease they have to send a copy the LR for it to be recorded.

So basically, registering a lease just means sending a copy to the land registry.

Quite wrong.

1. The bank doesn't own your property at all. It has a deferred legal and equitable interest in the form of a charge.

2. Courts don't impose charges after CCJ's. There is a process of charging orders which is a totally separate process.

3. A lease can be registered if it is for more than 3 years.

Any subsequent purchaser takes SUBJECT to the lease. Lenders may be put off that the property upon which they are taking security is subject to a third party interest. In these days of low mortgage lending they may simply refuse to lend.

Purchasers may be put off - I would - as it prevents them later from opting for paid-for panels.

grahamc2003

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Thus putting any potential purchaser or mortgagee on notice that someone else has an interest in the property.

Slightly more onerous than discovering that next door's drains run underneath the garden.

As I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer, any lease has to be assigned as part of the buying process. I once owned a flat, and the freeholder refused to assign the lease unless I paid £4k for no other reason than to assign it. Sales cammot proceed without this assignment, so I eventually had to pay up in order to sell.

the situation with solar panels on a rented roof is different, in that the freeholder is the houseowner, and the leaseholder is the panel owner, so while it would appear assigning the lease (by the home owner) is no problem at all, the panel owner can put restrictions in the lease forbidding the freeholder from assigning the lease without the leasholders consent - at least that is what I understand has happened.

Effectively, my understanding is that the panel owner can stop the sale of the house to anyone not prepared to take on the lease. So if you find a buyer who doesn't want free panels, then you simply can't sell to him. Some agreements allow the lease to be 'bought out' and cancelled, but from what I can gather (and someone else is supposed to be coming back on this), is that the buyout price will inclde both the price of the panels, plus all the foregone fit payments. (The situation more or less has to be like this, otherwise the panel owners simply have no business case for installing them).

As I say, I may be completely wrong, but that is my non-professional understanding.

ronlizpatsimon

"Equiliser123"
Regarding your last sentence;- If a future purchaser would have preferred to have his own panels; at least some of the "Free" installers allow you to buy back the current installation package

Equaliser123

ronlizpatsimon wrote: »

"Equiliser123"
Regarding your last sentence;- If a future purchaser would have preferred to have his own panels; at least some of the "Free" installers allow you to buy back the current installation package

Some maybe. And the right would have to be enshrined in the lease.

But in a difficult market, I personally would buy another property rather than get bogged down in a further discussions with a third party solar provider. Bottom line is if the size, type or other spec of the panels (or the maintenance for that matter) is not what I would go for then I simply would be put off.

Cardew

The legal implications with regard to selling, and the conditions imposed on the new owner have been discussed above.

Position where roof repairs are needed should be considered.

You must not allow anything to put the panels into shade. What happens when a neighbour's tree grows I do not know.

Want to go for 3 months 'down under' to visit relatives and shut off electricity - not allowed. Even if you leave electricity connected, 'rent a roof firm' must have access if required.

Zenoka

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Quite wrong.

1. The bank doesn't own your property at all. It has a deferred legal and equitable interest in the form of a charge. - Didn't say that that did, just that they often have a bigger interest in the property than you do.

2. Courts don't impose charges after CCJ's. There is a process of charging orders which is a totally separate process. - My misunderstanding.

3. A lease can be registered if it is for more than 3 years. - I was correct in that a lease of over 7 years must be registered. Less than 7 but more than 3 its optional.

Any subsequent purchaser takes SUBJECT to the lease. Lenders may be put off that the property upon which they are taking security is subject to a third party interest. In these days of low mortgage lending they may simply refuse to lend.

Purchasers may be put off - I would - as it prevents them later from opting for paid-for panels.

Gosh, this reminds me of being back at school and getting told off by teacher....

ronlizpatsimon

Good point "Cardew"

Whenever I go away I always leave the electric on for what I consider necessary items e.g. Burglar Alarm, Auto lights & auto radio, to make it look like you are at home, DVD and Freesat recorders, also, if Winter, I leave the central heating on at 10 degrees, to avoid pipes freezing.

As for access to equipment, a relative calls in daily to check the snail mail. I can remotely access my home telephone answering machine for any request to access the equipment. Also I check my emails daily whilst away (smartphone or laptop)

Your point about your neighbours tree is a valid one. However; that is also a potential problem on an owned installation

robxxx

Thanks for the more intelligent and considered of the responders to what was described by one charmer as a 'rant'. When I've attempted to wrestle the facts from so many hundred posts on a website that purports to be about saving money, I kind of feel that I have the right to my opinion and to express my frustration at the number of unhelpful exchanges - for goodness sake just exchange email addresses and take your discussions offline. I now feel that I could have emailed the various providers and got just as much information.