problem selling my house with solar panels

k3v1973

Hi,
I am in the process of selling my house and the buyer's solicitor has picked up on an anomaly with the lease for the solar panels. The lease does not comply with the CML handbook and needs changing. i also need confirmation of the confirmation that a 1954 landlord and tenants acts excluding the act from the lease were served upon me.

The solar panels were installed by a company called apex solar on behalf of venturetricity. I have contacted apex who told me i need to speak to venturetricity. My solicitor has tried a few phone numbers and cannot contact them they have also sent a letter to the address where the company is registered.
I am just wondering what happens if we get no reply from the letter. Has anyone got any ideas or has gone through something similar.

My solicitor has spoken to a company called good energy who is involved with venturetricity and they have said any local installer should be able to help, this doesnt sound right to me as the lease is with venturetrcity.

Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.

thanks

theartfullodger

A few stats from "The Times" (need subscription to read, sorry)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4174471.ece

Counting the cost

£30,000 landowner’s annual rental income per large wind turbine

£900 annual rental income per acre for solar farms

£115 annual cost of renewable energy subsidies per household.

£1.7 billion annual subsidy for wind turbines

£800 million annual biomass subsidy

£500 million annual solar subsidy

£7.6 billion annual cost of all renewable subsidies by 2020

£160 billion cumulative subsidies for renewables predicted for 2002-40

Sources: Renewable Energy Foundation; Department of Energy and Climate Change

These solar panels only make sense for the person getting the subsidy: Otherwise they don't stack up:

Any chance of you giving back what we've paid you, please??

Cheers!

k3v1973

I'm not sure what the point of your reply is.

bris

theartfullodger wrote: »

A few stats from "The Times" (need subscription to read, sorry)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4174471.ece


These solar panels only make sense for the person getting the subsidy: Otherwise they don't stack up:

Any chance of you giving back what we've paid you, please??

Cheers!

k3v1973 wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point of your reply is.

He's a bitter troll, jealous of anybody who has anything of worth because he hasn't.

stator

theartfullodger was just having a go because he doesn't believe in the subsidy, ignore him.

I'm afraid I can't offer any advice, it's a pretty specialist area, not sure how many people will have experience?

k3v1973

thanks for the genuine replies. I figured it wast just trolling and edited my initial reply.

i agree, its quite a niche subject but just thought it was worth ago while waiting to see if i get a reply to the solicitor's letter,which i'm not holding my breath for.

theartfullodger

Thanks all for your kind thoughts & comments

AdrianC

TBH, I suspect that the problem is not the fine detail of the installation and the roof lease, but the very existence of it. Whilst I'd be very happy to have my own panels on my roof, I'd be extremely wary of purchasing a house with a roof leased out for an extended period.

There's certainly been plenty of negative publicity about the saleability - and mortgageworthiness - of such schemes over the last couple of years, as a quick google will show. Any apparent departure from absolute best practice in the paperwork will merely multiply any qualms on the buyer's part.

eddddy

Hi k3v1973

As you probably realise, the problem is essentially:

You have probably sold a 25 year lease of your house's roof space to venturetrcity. It looks like the terms of that lease are unacceptable to any mortgage lender - because they are worried that if they have to repossess the house, the lease would make it hard to sell.

As an example, to make a lease acceptable to a lender, there must be a 'break clause' in the lease which essentially says:

"If the house is repossessed by a lender, the lender can break the 25 year lease with 2 months notice".

So you have to find venturetricity, and ask them accept new terms for the lease - and the new terms will probably be detrimental to venturetricity.

You cannot force them to accept the new terms. They may say

- No
- Only if you pay us loads of money
- Yes (if you pay our legal costs)


Just one other thought, are you clear about how much your solicitor is charging you for making these phone calls and writing letters?

It might be more cost efficient for you to do the initial investigations.

AdrianC

eddddy wrote: »

You have probably sold a 25 year lease of your house's roof space to venturetrcity. It looks like the terms of that lease are unacceptable to any mortgage lender - because they are worried that if they have to repossess the house, the lease would make it hard to sell.

It's a bit of a vicious circle, really...

"We won't lend, because it might be hard to sell, since nobody'll want to lend"

k3v1973

Thanks for the replies. From what I gather the clause should have been there as the panels were fitted after the cml guide lines came out. It's a good point regarding the solicitors costs for the letter, I will check. The whole thing is turning into a bit of a mess. There is no way I'm paying them thousands to buy the kit, I'd rather take it off the market.
Does anyone know if I'm right in saying the clause should have been there legally as I think and therefore because it's not I can use that as a means of breaking the lease?