Free solar panel discussion

grahamc2003

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

No, you have still got it wrong.


You make it sound as though the panel owners can prevent you from selling your house. They can not do this and your posts are misleading by implying that they can.

.

Of course they can! You've even implied it yourself!

If the purchaser doesn't like the lease, then the panel owner won't assign the lease - that is exactly the fact which will stop the sale. The seller can't say 'if you don't like the lease, then I'll sell it to you without the lease being assigned', then the buyer saying 'ok, I'll buy it under those conditions' (i.e. the buyer and seller agree to the terms of the sale) then the sale will still not proceed, in spite of that agreement. The thing which stops the sale proceeding under these circumstances is the lack of assignment of the lease, and that is under the control of the panel owners.

Hence, it is the panel owner who is stopping the sale (by not assigning or cancelling the lease).

What do you think the whole point is of the panel owner registering his interest in your property? It's to stop a sale unless his conditions on the sale are fulfilled (by the lease being assigned, to protect his 25 year interest in the property).

Your posts are very misleading by stating incorrectly that the alteration to your land registry entries doesn't introduce a party who has power over the sale of your house.

Anyhow - that's my last word on this topic, I'll leave you the final word.

John_Pierpoint

I can't see that this "lease" business should be a "show stopper" when it comes to selling your home BUT it is another slightly adverse factor for the purchaser: Like having someone else's sewer under your extension or sharing a drive way.
There is a danger, as some farmers have discovered with 'phone masts, that the lease might not clearly define what happens if the investment becomes unprofitable or breaks down. You might have a problem replacing the pile of someone else's redundant junk.

Larnsky

I personally don't see how the lease would be a problem to any future purchaser. It requires no ongoing costs from the new owner and their electricity bills are reduced which surely must be a benefit. The panels are maintained by the company, if they drop below a certain efficiency then they are replaced free of charge, even if this is in the 25th year, similarly the inverter is replaced free of charge (at least this is the case with British Gas).

The only reason I could see why someone would want them off of their roof is that they wanted to put their own ones up and benefit from the FiT, but after April 2012 the FiT is likely to drop anyway so this will probably become less appealing.

If the sale of the house did rely on the panels not being owned by someone else (and I really can't see how it would) then you do have the option to buy them out, but I admit this would be at a high cost.

Jon_Tiffany

Pincher wrote: »

Actually, what's the hurry? The 41.3p fixed for 25 years FIT for PVs is available for system installed up to 31st March 2012.

Abuse
=====

As far as the government is concerned, they have you down as a working installation, and actively reducing UK carbon emissions. They have no intention of removing you from their statistics, so checking up is shooting themselves in the foot.

Let's see, the FIT is based on estimated output.
So if the sun is permanently behind clouds for the next 25 years they can't claw the money back.

Even on a proper installation, who's to say the panels will not fail one by one? How will the householder know? Do the panels have individual monitoring?

So, if you pick up some faulty PV panels for scrap money, add a few working panels, have an unscrupulous MCS installer re-trained from the double glazing industry slap it on your non-south facing roof and certify it based on PV surface area, who is going to check? Who can prosecute you for using secondhand panels? Who can do you for having very low output?

In two years time, if they do a spot check, say the panels failed outside warranty. Alternatively, since the installing company has disappeared, say that you want to claim on warranty, but the company no longer exists.

They can't check using the amount of electricity exported, because you can just say you used it. So having a faulty inverter doesn't make much difference.

So for £2k investment in 2011, you get £1,300 a year for 24 years.

If this proliferates, guess what will happen?
There will be public outcry, so the government will bring in legislation to make an annual Energy Perfromance Certificate compulsory for solar PV installations, but provided you still have one panel generating a trickle, you will pass. How can they demand that you actually generate 3kW, who has control over sunshine?

I'm afraid your plan would not work.

The FITs are not based on estimated output, they are based on actual generation, as measured by an Ofgem approved meter.

You are certainly correct that panels may start to fail or degrade over time. 25 years is a long time, plenty for all sorts of things to break or fail.

Gizmosmum_2

Pincher wrote: »

Actually, what's the hurry? The 41.3p fixed for 25 years FIT for PVs is available for system installed up to 31st March 2012.

Abuse
=====

As far as the government is concerned, they have you down as a working installation, and actively reducing UK carbon emissions. They have no intention of removing you from their statistics, so checking up is shooting themselves in the foot.

Let's see, the FIT is based on estimated output.
So if the sun is permanently behind clouds for the next 25 years they can't claw the money back.

Even on a proper installation, who's to say the panels will not fail one by one? How will the householder know? Do the panels have individual monitoring?

So, if you pick up some faulty PV panels for scrap money, add a few working panels, have an unscrupulous MCS installer re-trained from the double glazing industry slap it on your non-south facing roof and certify it based on PV surface area, who is going to check? Who can prosecute you for using secondhand panels? Who can do you for having very low output?

In two years time, if they do a spot check, say the panels failed outside warranty. Alternatively, since the installing company has disappeared, say that you want to claim on warranty, but the company no longer exists.

They can't check using the amount of electricity exported, because you can just say you used it. So having a faulty inverter doesn't make much difference.

So for £2k investment in 2011, you get £1,300 a year for 24 years.

If this proliferates, guess what will happen?
There will be public outcry, so the government will bring in legislation to make an annual Energy Perfromance Certificate compulsory for solar PV installations, but provided you still have one panel generating a trickle, you will pass. How can they demand that you actually generate 3kW, who has control over sunshine?

You'll know if the panels start to fail - it's the same argument as shading, once one goes the rest go with it. The panels are covered by an insurance backed guarantee in a similar way to double glazing and insulation. If the company goes bust you claim from the insurance company - hard to see the likes of Sharp and Schott ging bust but you never know so at least you'd have that reassurance.

Real Assurance insist that the installers provide a guarantee for their workmanship and again this is usually insurance backed. If the firm goes bust you claim on the insurance. SAP calculations have got to be done for solar pv so it wouldn't be much extra cost to knock out an EPC at the same time - don't really see the problem.

Please remember that not all "one man bands" are cowboys or out to con people in the same way as not all multinationals are whiter than white. Size of company is mostly irrelevant there's good and bad across all sizes of company.

I've worked for both with honesty and integrity and know many, many good companies of all sizes who just want to earn a decent living from delivering a decent service/product I work for myself and OH works for himself - neither of us are cowboys and we get a bit sick sometimes of being tarred with the same brush when it can potentially restrict our business development because of loose comments.

Sorry Pincher that's not directed just at you specifically but at those who seem to like having a pop at decent people trying to do a decent job.

Poosmate

I wonder how much Vattenfall are paid for their green electricity, having invested over £900million in their large off shore wind farm .....?

Our Utilities haven't paid them to install their wind farm off the coast of Kent but I bet they will be buying some (if not all) of the electricity they produce.

Our Utilities are not paying the likes of ASG or HomeSun or Isis nor us to install the apparatus that will generate electricity but we do know how much they will be paying some of us for the next 25 years (41.3p +3p on some of it) for the electricity we generate.

Collectively, all of the solar pv generators are just the same as one single huge company such as Vattenfall. The only difference, of course, is we don't know how much our Utilities pay the large companies for their electric.

Pincher

I need decent workers! I just keep getting the sharks who sense desperation and triple the asking price. I treat my regular guys who do the best they can like royalty! They have lunch in my garden, and munch on my water melons. When it's cold, I put on the gas heater and make them filtered coffee and tea. I provide masks when it's dusty work, and rush out to buy spare parts so they don't waste time.

In any case, I am not saying I want to do this, but pointing out potential loopholes that both householders and installers will go through to grab a piece of the freebie.



Regarding the "based on actual generation, as measured by an Ofgem approved meter" :

That is not my understanding of how it works.
I thought it's a fixed amount, and once fixed, you get the same amount for 25 years, regardless of failing PV panels, reduced efficiency, etc.

To read the meter, total up and send out the money based on actual generation sounds like a means tested Winter Fuel Allowance fiasco.

corrolla2

i applied to a shede greener for free solar panels and they did reply within a few weeks saying our roof was not big enough or the right shape and was the wrong aspect regarding south facing
our house is as big as any 3 bed semi and receives as much sunlight as anyother
i know alot of people who applied and been turned down and have yet to meet anybody who has been accepted
these companies only take on the properties that in there opinion will generate alot of power and therefore give them a larger return on their outlay even though they are supposed to be able to claim funds from the government
the government keep preaching green power and subsidising wind farms to the tune of millions when they generate only on average 30% of there claimed capacity
i think a rethink is required regarding the way householders can access ways to take advantage of this green technology

Poosmate

Pincher wrote: »

Regarding the "based on actual generation, as measured by an Ofgem approved meter" :

That is not my understanding of how it works.
I thought it's a fixed amount, and once fixed, you get the same amount for 25 years, regardless of failing PV panels, reduced efficiency, etc.

To read the meter, total up and send out the money based on actual generation sounds like a means tested Winter Fuel Allowance fiasco.

Your panels are metered so you know how much has been generated (actual generation) and this is what you are paid FiTs on. Say your system generates 1200kWhs in the first year you'll be paid for 1200kWhs, if in 20 years time they have degraded or become less efficient due to dirt and poopy build up and they only generate 900KWhs, you'll be paid for 900kWhs. Just as if the sun shines brightly one year and you generate 1400kWhs or if we have a miserable year and only generate 800kWhs.

The FiTs are based on what is generated which is variable. The only "fixed" rate is the level of the FiT payment - currently 41.3p + 3p on top export payment for 50% of whatever is generated.

50% is the deemed amount of export as most companies reckon it's difficult (if not near impossible) for a normal household to use 100% of the solar generated electricity.

Poo

Poosmate

corrolla2 wrote: »

i applied to a shede greener for free solar panels and they did reply within a few weeks saying our roof was not big enough or the right shape and was the wrong aspect regarding south facing
our house is as big as any 3 bed semi and receives as much sunlight as anyother
i know alot of people who applied and been turned down and have yet to meet anybody who has been accepted
these companies only take on the properties that in there opinion will generate alot of power and therefore give them a larger return on their outlay even though they are supposed to be able to claim funds from the government
the government keep preaching green power and subsidising wind farms to the tune of millions when they generate only on average 30% of there claimed capacity
i think a rethink is required regarding the way householders can access ways to take advantage of this green technology

It's the companies that are supplying the free solar panels that are kickstarting and driving this market. The prices of the systems are falling (albeit slowly it seems) and it's creating more competition.

The cost of these systems have been historically high and restrictive in that relying solely on the reduction on your electric bill, it would never pay for itself. The FiTs payments have opened up the market to an awful lot more people.

However, the upfront cost is still very restrictive. Your £10k-£15k investment in solar panels is going to take about 10-12 years to recoup even with the Fits set at 41.3p (+ 3p for exported).