Solar panels: a warning

DKLS

I have pulled out of two house purchases now due to complications around solar panels which both had so called "transferable lease deals" I did enquire how much it would cost to remove the panels from one of the houses we really liked, but thanks to a couple of sneaky clauses in the contract would mean paying out the value of the lease deal to the solar company who installed the system, and now wouldnt touch a house that has them fitted.

Ashadegreener_representative

welshwizard1927 wrote: »

If this is the case, perhaps you can answer:

1. How does a future buyer/lender know whether the panels have been fitted by an accredited company?

2. How can a future buyer/lender be confident that the owner of the panels will comply with the code of conduct that is attached to beng accredited, if it is not accredited?

The whole business model, in my view appears completely flawed for the owner. Of course, it works well for the panel owners, who may do what they wish with their trading business without jeopardising the status of the subsidiary that owns the panels. Note the companies I referred to were not linked by a shareholding greater than 50% - thus a minority shareholding at that . Separate registered companies attract an entirely separate and independent legal entity.

1. If the panels are under the 'rent-a-roof' scheme then they will have been fitted by an accredited installer (either their own or a contractor). If the installers are not MCS accredited then the company has made a slight oversight in their business plan that has left them with no income; for the investors this is not a trivial error.

Privately owned panels will have the relevant documentation.

2. The owner does not have to be accredited. The lease will ensure that the owner meets their obligations. The lease will be something signed before the install and so the current owner of the property will/should know the clauses.

'RaR' companies do not stop people from purchasing panels, anyone is welcome to invest in their own system and take the FIT themselves. FREE solar allows anyone to benefit from having solar panels regardless if they can afford their own or not.

DKLS wrote: »

I have pulled out of two house purchases now due to complications around solar panels which both had so called "transferable lease deals" I did enquire how much it would cost to remove the panels from one of the houses we really liked, but thanks to a couple of sneaky clauses in the contract would mean paying out the value of the lease deal to the solar company who installed the system, and now wouldnt touch a house that has them fitted.

All terms of the lease have to be set out within the document. Any company worth their salt will provide a customer with all the information without them needing to ask. Having said that it is still advised to seek independent legal advice to ensure there is nothing missed.

The leases for each company differ, don't be put off properties with free solar by one bad experience.

welshwizard1927 wrote: »

Having been through the process of attempting to purchase a property with leased solar panels, as well as trying to obtain home insurance, it is my personal view that people should steer well clear of them. I appreciate those who have the panels, and those who try to flog the panels will think otherwise, but genuinely think this will be a massive 'time bomb' in a few years where people can't sell/remortgage/renew home insurance on properties with such panels.

If you really with to have them - either buy then outright or get a loan to buy them. Either way I cannot see any merit in leasing them under such onerous, unfair terms.

Don't forget this opinion is based upon one experience with attempting to purchase a property. An experience that is arguably the fault of the mortgage provider for giving incorrect advice after basing their decision on a faulty assumption. If the owner of the panels must be accredited to be able to obtain a mortgage then that would also be true if an individual bought the panels. In that case anyone who bought the panels would be unable to sell their property with the solar panels on unless they became an MCS accredited installer themselves. We know that is not the case.

I assume that most companies that offer free solar will also insure the systems themselves as a way to protect their investment. Our systems are fully insured and they do NOT impact upon a customer home insurance.

There is merit to both the purchase option and free solar. The purchase is an investment and free solar is for cutting costs. Even with a modest annual tariff increase over the life of the solar panels the homeowner will save thousands.

welshwizard1927

Ashadegreener, I appreciate that your allegiance will be towards the company that employs you/you own.

You seem to have confirmed that the owner of the panels are not accredited, thus the home owner cannot be assured that the owner of the panels will comply with any industry standard code of conduct. Surely you see that such accreditation will offer a huge degree of assurance to home owners with leased panels?

The wealth of articles online detailing the huge risks attached to leased panels appear to support my view. Surely they all can't be based on one attempted house purchase too?

nrsql

Doesn't really matter what the rules are about accreditation - the mortgage company will have it's own guidelines. If they are uncomfortable about the company that owns part of the house they won't offer a mortgage.

Must admit - in their shoes I would be concerned about a company that was just set up to hold the ownership of the lease and looked as though it was there to avoid any regulatory bodies.

jimjames

welshwizard1927 wrote: »

Unfortunately not possible - the FIT is claimed by the owners of the solar panels - hence the only benefit to the home owner is free electricity during the day.

If you really with to have them - either buy then outright or get a loan to buy them. Either way I cannot see any merit in leasing them under such onerous, unfair terms.

If you buy the lease company out then you own the panels and you will get the FITs. FITs are completely separate to the use of electricity during the day.

If it was a 4kWp system generating £1600 pa then over the remaining 23 years you would easily cover the £16k buyout cost.

I agree about the benefits of buying and it is a useful warning to anyone thinking of using a lease company to check them out.

welshwizard1927 wrote: »

Ashadegreener, I appreciate that your allegiance will be towards the company that employs you/you own.

You seem to have confirmed that the owner of the panels are not accredited, thus the home owner cannot be assured that the owner of the panels will comply with any industry standard code of conduct. Surely you see that such accreditation will offer a huge degree of assurance to home owners with leased panels?

What code of conduct are you referring to? I'm not aware of any.

There is a MCS code for installation which is required for panels to be eligible for FIT payments. Once installed that is it, whether you are a private owner or lease company there is further no accreditation or code of conduct as you have no further responsibility for the panels.

Any lease company is going to be very keen to carry out any repairs quickly as they will lose money all the time the panels are not generating.

Ashadegreener_representative

welshwizard1927 wrote: »

Ashadegreener, I appreciate that your allegiance will be towards the company that employs you/you own.

You seem to have confirmed that the owner of the panels are not accredited, thus the home owner cannot be assured that the owner of the panels will comply with any industry standard code of conduct. Surely you see that such accreditation will offer a huge degree of assurance to home owners with leased panels?

The wealth of articles online detailing the huge risks attached to leased panels appear to support my view. Surely they all can't be based on one attempted house purchase too?

Your own OP was based on only one experience with one company on one property. Many other articles are the same. There have been genuine issues with certain providers but it is important not to label the whole free solar panel industry because of that. Each company is different and mortgage providers will take the lease into account when making their decision, not the existence of the panels themselves. We have installed nearly 25K systems and our customers have not reported any issues when it comes to selling their property.

I appreciate that this experience has not left you with a great deal of faith in the free solar industry but it was the mortgage lender you approached that gave you incorrect advice. I doubt that it is relevant to the mortgage company if the installers were accredited or not as it is really only needed to claim the fit.

It is important to remember that MCS accreditation does not enshrine industry standards for the owners of solar panels; it only provides industry standards for the installers and the equipment. The mortgage adviser seems to have mistaken MCS to be the governing body of the solar industry.

MCS in a nut shell;

Both the installers and the equipment must be MCS accredited. Once a system has been installed an MCS certificate will be issued to the owner of the panels. Without this certificate the owner will be unable to claim the FIT.

If the solar panels were fitted for free then the company that fitted them will need the system to have an MCS certificate otherwise they will not receive a return on their investment.

*A Shade Greener are MCS accredited; all installers are employed directly by ASG.

Our in-house solicitor was consulted by the Council of Mortgage Lenders when they wrote up their guidelines. If you email us with all the issues you had with the mortgage provider in regards to free solar, along with their details, we will see if there is anything we can do on your behalf.

DKLS

Ashadegreener_representative wrote: »

1.
All terms of the lease have to be set out within the document. Any company worth their salt will provide a customer with all the information without them needing to ask. Having said that it is still advised to seek independent legal advice to ensure there is nothing missed.

The leases for each company differ, don't be put off properties with free solar by one bad experience.

Thanks but I wouldnt touch a house with panels on with a barge pole unless I could have them ripped out.

Ashadegreener_representative

DKLS wrote: »

Thanks but I wouldnt touch a house with panels on with a barge pole unless I could have them ripped out.

It is each to their own. For every person put off by solar panels there is always another that they appeal to. We ourselves have installed nearly 23,000 systems and had over half a million applications. So from our experience alone that means for every one person who has solar panels fitted there is at least 20 who want them.

To have the panels removed without cost I imagine you would have to look for properties without solar panels on altogether. If the homeowner has personally invested many thousands of pounds in the system they are unlikely to want to lose that investment and will probably seek to recover it in the sale.

DKLS

Ashadegreener_representative wrote: »

It is each to their own. For every person put off by solar panels there is always another that they appeal to. We ourselves have installed nearly 23,000 systems and had over half a million applications. So from our experience alone that means for every one person who has solar panels fitted there is at least 20 who want them.

To have the panels removed without cost I imagine you would have to look for properties without solar panels on altogether. If the homeowner has personally invested many thousands of pounds in the system they are unlikely to want to lose that investment and will probably seek to recover it in the sale.

I would have a ground array system, but simply wouldnt have roof mounted panels as they look so !!!!!!, the last house I viewed was ruined by solar panels it was a victorian villa, and every aspect of curb appeal had been ruined. I am yet to see an attractive installation in this country.

Saving a few quid isnt enough of an incentive to ruin a house for me.

tunnel

DKLS wrote: »

I .

Saving a few quid isnt enough of an incentive to ruin a house for me.

And my take on that,

Earning a few quid is an incentive to ruin a house for me.

Seriously though, mine are on the back of the house and blind side of my garage so don't see them. When i'm in the garden I don't sit looking up at the panels (well maybe if its sunny:D)