Selling a house with solar panels and feed-in tariff

Davesnave

mrginge wrote: »

Knowing all the mess that these agreements can cause, when looking for a new house i just completely ignored any with solar panels.

I wouldn't ignore places with panels, but I would want to own them and receive the FiT. It's not complicated, if that's the situation.

Others just hate the look, which is a real consideration at present. It may not be as significant when they are more commonplace, or it may be that by then their appearance will be much better and 'old' ones outmoded. Therein lies the risk, I think.

jackieblack

ChopperST wrote: »

you are potentially (depending on the size of the system) turning down FIT income and electricity savings of up to £1000 a year (for a well designed 4kW South facing system

Doesn't need to be
Ours is a bog standard 2.22 kWp system and we've received over £1000pa in FIT alone every year so far

onlyroz

Well admittedly my concern is for purely selfish reasons - my parents are aged 70 and 77 and have no plans to move, and so any legal complications will likely come down to me eventually as it will likely me that will ultimately end up having to sell the house. I'd be happier to go with the simplest option - i.e. the new owner buys the panels and gets the FiT, all bundled in with the purchase price of the house. It sounds like attempting to keep the FiT would technically be possible but will create all manner of legal headaches.

mrginge

ChopperST wrote: »

That really is cutting your nose off to spite your face though isn't it?

I completely understand your concern regarding the rent a roof schemes but if you purchase a property where the vendors are the owners of the panels and they transfer ownership of the panels to you with the sale of the house you are potentially (depending on the size of the system) turning down FIT income and electricity savings of up to £1000 a year (for a well designed 4kW South facing system) with no capital outlay from yourself. Meaning that for whatever duration the FIT tariff is guaranteed for you are in pure profit...

ah, so in such a case the asking price of the house wouldn't reflect this £1000 a year energy saving?
The vendors would simply give this benefit away?

I think in reality you would pay a higher up front cost, for a perceived benefit that may become obsolete or (relatively speaking) inefficient in X years, that you have a potential ongoing maintenance cost for, that may be costly to remove, that may not generate the 'profit' you are told it will and that may give a negative impression on any future sale.

Sugar coating your scenario as a guaranteed £1000 a year profit is a bit misleading.

onlyroz

mrginge wrote: »

ah, so in such a case the asking price of the house wouldn't reflect this £1000 a year energy saving?
The vendors would simply give this benefit away?

I think in reality you would pay a higher up front cost, for a perceived benefit that may become obsolete or (relatively speaking) inefficient in X years, that you have a potential ongoing maintenance cost for, that may be costly to remove, that may not generate the 'profit' you are told it will and that may give a negative impression on any future sale.

Sugar coating your scenario as a guaranteed £1000 a year profit is a bit misleading.

The panels come with a 20-year warranty which includes maintenance and repairs as necessary. The FiT is also guaranteed for 20 years. It is estimated that they will generate around 50% of your electricity (or more if you target your useage for daylight hours) and so as electricity costs rise over the next 20 years you'll see more and more benefit of this.

Lemoncurd

We recently sold and transferred the FIT to the new owners, the estate agent said that they did have a seller who retained the FIT but we didn't consider it as it just seemed too messy and unfair on the buyers.
It did take almost 6 months for the FIT provider to do the changeover but that didn't affect us in any way. I gave them a final reading and our new address when we moved but I think the buyers had to chase them quite a bit after that. I hadn't bothered so it was a nice surprise when the final FIT cheque arrived a few weeks ago.

Mistral001

I wonder what surveyors flag up when they do a full survey on a house with solar panels. I don't mean just the basic valuation survey for mortgage purposes, but what used to be called, a full structural survey where a thorough survey maybe lasting two or three hours is done on the property.

As well as the type of contract, if any, the vendor has with the company who owns the solar panels there could be technical aspects that the buyer would probably need to know about. I am thinking of such things as type of panels, efficiency, damage or faults, any damage to roof at mounting brackets going through the tiles/slates etc.

ChopperST

mrginge wrote: »

ah, so in such a case the asking price of the house wouldn't reflect this £1000 a year energy saving?
The vendors would simply give this benefit away?

I think in reality you would pay a higher up front cost, for a perceived benefit that may become obsolete or (relatively speaking) inefficient in X years, that you have a potential ongoing maintenance cost for, that may be costly to remove, that may not generate the 'profit' you are told it will and that may give a negative impression on any future sale.

Sugar coating your scenario as a guaranteed £1000 a year profit is a bit misleading.

You clearly have little knowledge of the subject matter and nothing in my scenario is sugar coated.

The "perceived" benefit you speak of is 20 year guaranteed inflation linked, tax free payment and reduction in your electricity cost. Any decent installer will have used panels with a manufacturers 25 year warranty on performance and efficiency. The only maintenance required to the system is an inverter change roughly every 10 years which is likely to be in the region of £500 if the technology continues to grow at is current rate and economies of scale continue.

With regards to panels not generating the "profit" you have been forecast. All three companies that quoted our system prior to its installation offered an insurance backed guarantee that the panels will perform within 10% of their estimates for 20 years or they will refund the difference, I'm sure this is how the majority of MCS installers work. The use of diversionary switches also means less reliance on gas for your hot water needs as you can use your electric immersion to heat your hot water resulting in reduced reliance on fossil fuels and the grid and potential increases in the life of your gas boiler.

Have a look on the green boards for further information on how well designed systems work and try and understand the subject matter a little clearer as you seem to be basing your understanding on hear say and conjecture as opposed to hard facts.

That said everyone is entitled to their opinion and some people will be put off by the appearance of the panels themselves as they will not to be to everyone's taste but don't try to downplay the financial upsides without first taking some time to research the topic accurately. However, totally agree with your point that one should be wary of purchasing a property where you do not own the system and a third party agreement is in place.

I don't feel that solar panels will be able to attract a premium on an identical property without but should be considered in the same way as double glazing, insulation and A+++ appliances would be by prospective purchasers. It will also appeal to peoples green and eco credentials.

PasturesNew

onlyroz wrote: »

I'd be happier to go with the simplest option

While that might be possible, you have to also consider that at the time you're doing it it might not be "your choice". It has the small potential for you to be acting as Power of Attorney on behalf of one remaining parent - and then you have an obligation to do the "best by them" and not "what you prefer/is easiest". It's a thin line, a grey area - and most of the time you won't be in that position or you can have carte blanche to choose ... but it depends who else has a vested interest in making the choice. Remember: where there's a will there's a relative too....

mrginge

No need to get all upset.

First of all you stated a guaranteed profit with no capital outlay. I pointed out that as a buyer you would be paying a capital outlay in terms of a higher house price.
You've now disputed that and said that the panels wouldn't induce a premium. Well if thats the case, as a seller your initial outlay is going to be written off over a smaller period, reducing your 'profit' significantly.

Secondly, you'll notice my use of words such as 'may', 'potential', 'perceived'.
I state possible risks that could (see i did it again) have a future cost.

You use words such as 'guaranteed','will' and then supplement with comments like ....

'I'm sure this is how the majority of MCS installers work'
'Any decent installer will have used...'
'The only maintenance is likely to be....if...'

Then you criticise me for not stating 'facts'!

My issue with these deals primarily is the length of tie in that is required to make then feasible. 20 years is a long time to be tied to a contract. Did you have a solicitor review it before you signed it?