Solar Panels

TrickyDicky101

As time elapses, the potential costs to the householder escalate - this is because after the 20 year (or however long) lease expires, the panels and associated maintenance/repair/removal costs all revert to the householder.

I wouldn't touch a house with leased panels (I bought my panels in the knowledge that I would potentially need to pay to have them removed at the end of the tariff period).

D00gie72

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

As time elapses, the potential costs to the householder escalate - this is because after the 20 year (or however long) lease expires, the panels and associated maintenance/repair/removal costs all revert to the householder.

That depends entirely upon the wording of the lease. With ours, at the end of the lease period the company who owned the panels were responsible for their removal. (at no cost to us) In the meantime the householder would of enjoyed 20 years of free electricity.

theartfullodger

D00gie72 wrote: »

.....That depends entirely upon the wording of the lease. With ours, at the end of the lease period the company who owned the panels were responsible for their removal. (at no cost to us) In the meantime the householder would of enjoyed 20 years of free electricity.

And if the company has gone bust?? Quite common with so-called "green" energy solar-panel companies....
e.g.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/15/government-blamed-as-third-uk-solar-power-installer-goes-bust

A spokesman for the Solar Trade Association (STA) said: “The government’s proposals for solar are so extreme that most solar companies are not able to envisage surviving next year.

Dan-Dan

Interesting reading guys, thanks

I must admit as soon as i saw them i started thinking i wasnt interested....i checked with the EA and they advised that they were leased, but as pointed out, if leased then why mention any feed in tariff?

Even though its 250 miles away we just happen to have a mutual friend who knows the vendor so i am about to contact them directly to ask for more info

Cheers All

Dan-Dan

Sam12341 wrote: »

Hi!
I'm currently buying a house with leased solar panels on from the company a shade greener.
My solicitor has expressed what a massive pain they are but I don't think we're too bothered and it hasn't really proved problematic with the house sale although it probably has made it take a little more time.

Googling mortgage offers and solar panels does return some scary results. It looks like my solicitor had to provide a couple of documents to Nationwide (who our mortgage will be with) but they have seemingly always responded with no issues. I think one document was building regs for the panels and another some sort of certificate to prove the company is legit.

I'm not too sure what to think of them overall - it wasn't enough of a reason not to buy the house. Get the solicitor if you haven't already to get the contract from the company. Ours seemed to have a couple of good conditions like they can be removed three times over the lease period for a max of 3 months if you wanted to do home improvements. Also if you can prove the panels are reducing the saleability of the house they will remove them.


Also - what questions are on your to ask list regarding them? I do worry I have missed something important about them!

Did you negotiate a reduction in asking price based on the panels being in situ?

Grenage

I bought a house with leased panels in 2012, and sold the house at the end of 2015.

The lower electricity bills were nice, and it didn't put off prospective buyers.

Would I choose to have them put on my roof? No.
Would I be particularly put off if they were already there? No.
Did it cause any problems for my purchase and sale? No.

Davesnave

A lot of people hate solar panels, just as they hate wind turbines, so they probably reduce the potential number of people who'd be interested in a house, even if it's a 70s box with the architectural merit of a shed.

As time goes by, this will probably change.

In the village where I live, the council put solar panels on all the old folks bungalows when the FiT payments were really good. Brilliant move, wins all round.

theartfullodger

Davesnave wrote: »

.....Brilliant move, wins all round.

Not "all round" The taxpayer is paying huge subsidies for these bungs, albeit in this case the recipients (presumably old folk..) rather more deserving..

PT858600

In my view this is very bad. Solar is good but you need to own the kit on the roof.

Davesnave

theartfullodger wrote: »

Not "all round" The taxpayer is paying huge subsidies for these bungs, albeit in this case the recipients (presumably old folk..) rather more deserving..

Totally aware of this. However, the council are getting this bung from central government, which helps a little to redress the balance, as we country folk don't do so well compared with the cities when it comes to funding for things like education.