Selling a house with solar panels and feed-in tariff

onlyroz

PasturesNew wrote: »

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....

Interesting point. So in a hypothetical scenario let's say that my dad died and my mum went into a nursing home - so I'd either have to sell the house or rent it out to cover the nursing home fees. Any ideas what might happen here if there was still a FiT being paid? (I believe that it has already been arranged for me to have Power of Attourney in such circumstances).

onlyroz

mrginge wrote: »

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?

My parents have already signed it, but I think they're still within the 7-day cooling off period. I'm trying to get an understanding of exactly what they've agreed to before this period ends.

Fruit_and_Nut_Case

onlyroz wrote: »

...16 panels covering most of the roof at a cost of around £12k...

Regardless of anything else, that is far too expensive in this day and age! I paid less than that over two years ago.

AdrianC

onlyroz wrote: »

Interesting point. So in a hypothetical scenario let's say that my dad died and my mum went into a nursing home - so I'd either have to sell the house or rent it out to cover the nursing home fees. Any ideas what might happen here if there was still a FiT being paid? (I believe that it has already been arranged for me to have Power of Attourney in such circumstances).

In the unlikely event that anybody stuck their oar in and insisted that you should retain the FiT, because it was income due to them, it would be very easy to say "Look, the small extra income is more than negated by the difficulty in selling the house without it attached."

Yes, there's an onus on an attorney to do the best by the attornee (is that a word? It should be...), but that isn't purely and simply a financial decision.

ChopperST

mrginge wrote: »

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?

I'd like to hope no one is getting upset, I'd like to think this a constructive exchange of opinions.

I'll try and tackle your points one by one.

1. I pointed out that as a buyer you would be paying a capital outlay in terms of a higher house price.

That would depend on market forces, it would all be up to the buyer and seller to agree (or not) if the panels warranted a premium over a comparable property without. I have no evidence to suggest as to which side of the coin it would fall

2. Your initial outlay is going to be written off over a smaller period, reducing your 'profit' significantly.

When you consider installing a system on your property it is made very clear to you that it is only going to be profitable if you stay in the property medium to long term. Any purchaser of a property with panels already installed would be wise to discuss the performance of the system with the vendor and they would be able to make their own decision as to whether or not a "premium" should be added to the purchase price of the property

3. With regards to the scheme the feed in tariff is guaranteed by the government as an inflation linked payment based on generation and export for 20 years. The other components of the system are warranted by their prospective manufacturers (Panels for 25 years, inverters 5 - 25 years) again you would discuss this with your installer and factor this into your potential income and expenditure on the system)

I don't see the merits in your "ifs" because there are so many technicalities to the systems you cannot give a one size fits all precise figure on the costs one would incur with x solar panel system versus y.

4. When you purchase a system outright, there is no contract to speak of. I assume you are referring back to the OP?

AdrianC

ChopperST wrote: »

4. When you purchase a system outright, there is no contract to speak of. I assume you are referring back to the OP?

Or, p'raps, the 20yr "guarantee" of the FiT.

mrginge

Whats the average break even point for these panels?
5 years?, 10 years?
How does that compare to the average time people spend in the same house?

If you have no contract, whats to stop the government from reducing or stopping your income stream?

The more you post, the more you make these schemes seem like a lottery...

onlyroz

mrginge wrote: »

Whats the average break even point for these panels?
5 years?, 10 years?
How does that compare to the average time people spend in the same house?

If you have no contract, whats to stop the government from reducing or stopping your income stream?

My parents have been advised that the "break even point" is 5-10 years, depending on how much electricity prices rise in the future. The more they rise, the more profit. And all the documentation refers to the 20 year guarantee. Any changes to the FiT would only apply to new customers.

dimbo61

cost of around £12k
Too expensive and the FIT rate is again going DOWN this month so will Mum earn £1000 a year?
May put some buyers off if it covers the front of the house and seen by all the neighbours.

onlyroz

It's not my place to tell her that she could have got them cheaper, especially when she's so excited about it. I just wanted some reassurance that she was not going to get bogged down in a potential legal mess - and it seems like things should be straightforward as long as the FiT gets relinquished in a future sale of the house. If it all goes well I might even consider them for my own house.