Leased Solar Panels

inwonderland3

Hello,


We re very close to completing on a house with solar panels installed. Over the last few days it has become apparent that the lease (we do not own panels, we would lease them to a company) is not standard. We would be liable to pay for and replace any accidental damage that may occur to the panels. Is this normal? Should we be pulling out? I don't know what to do!

Margot123

Your conveyancer/solicitor should be looking at the potential pitfalls.
Have you rung them with your concerns?

Davesnave

It's probably quite usual for 'rent-a-roof' panels. The company collecting the FIT is paid for whatever they generate, so any damage caused, say, by a careless roofer, is bound to impact on them.

It ought to be be a different matter for natural deterioration, routine cleaning etc, which they should be responsible for.

Normally, these agreeements spell out what provision there is for roof repairs and similar situations, where temporary removal or damage might happen, so the devil will be in the detail.

I presume you mean that exchange of contracts is imminent, not completion. After exchange, it would be very expensive to pull out!

AnotherJoe

Is the lender aware? There is a standard for these leases and unless it meets that, then the lender won't lend If the company who has the lease is bust,!then getting it changed can be a catch 22 and you'll have to walk anyway.

sevenhills

inwonderland3 wrote: »

We re very close to completing on a house with solar panels installed. Over the last few days it has become apparent that the lease (we do not own panels, we would lease them to a company) is not standard. We would be liable to pay for and replace any accidental damage that may occur to the panels. Is this normal? Should we be pulling out? I don't know what to do!

People hype up the issues around solar panels. Panels are very common, some leased and some owned outright.

eddddy

sevenhills wrote: »

People hype up the issues around solar panels. Panels are very common, some leased and some owned outright.

With 'rent-a-roof' schemes, it's not really 'people' who hype up the issues - it's the mortgage lenders.

Essentially, you would be buying a house where the roof space has already been sold on a lease to somebody else.

The mortgage lenders want to make sure that the lease has acceptable terms. If the lease doesn't have acceptable terms, they won't lend on the property.


Here's what mortgage lenders say about those leases: https://www.cml.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/question-list/2115/

sevenhills

eddddy wrote: »

With 'rent-a-roof' schemes, it's not really 'people' who hype up the issues - it's the mortgage lenders.
Essentially, you would be buying a house where the roof space has already been sold on a lease to somebody else.

Yes that is quite common, the solicitor/conveyancer should have dealt with these before, and they just need to make sure things are transfered appropriately.

AnotherJoe

sevenhills wrote: »

Yes that is quite common, the solicitor/conveyancer should have dealt with these before, and they just need to make sure things are transferred appropriately.

But sometimes, for reasons already covered, that becomes very difficult / expensive.

eddddy

sevenhills wrote: »

Yes that is quite common, the solicitor/conveyancer should have dealt with these before, and they just need to make sure things are transfered appropriately.

That's not really the issue.

If a roof has been leased to a solar panel company, and the lease isn't acceptable to a mortgage lender... the house owner has to ask the solar panel company if they will agree to change the lease.

Typically the changes to the lease put the solar panel company in a worse position - so they might refuse, or they might charge fees etc.

And ultimately, if the solar panel company refuse to change the lease, there is nothing the house owner can do. They might have an unmortgageable house.

sevenhills

eddddy wrote: »

That's not really the issue.

If a roof has been leased to a solar panel company, and the lease isn't acceptable to a mortgage lender... the house owner has to ask the solar panel company if they will agree to change the lease.

Typically the changes to the lease put the solar panel company in a worse position - so they might refuse, or they might charge fees etc.
And ultimately, if the solar panel company refuse to change the lease, there is nothing the house owner can do. They might have an unmortgageable house.

Why would they? The OP thinks a lease agreement 'is not standard', there are many companies that have offered, free solar panels.
The OP should read this thread.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3322744/discuss-the-free-solar-panel-company-a-shade-greener


Unless the OP is thinking about installing windows in the roof that has solar panels on, free electricity during the day, does it matter that the OP will not be the owner of the panels?

eddddy

sevenhills wrote: »

Why would they? The OP thinks a lease agreement 'is not standard', there are many companies that have offered, free solar panels.
The OP should read this thread.

You need to re-read the whole thread.

It's about buying a house with solar panels already installed - so you cannot choose the supplier.

I'm guessing that either...
- You work for a firm that sells 'rent-a-roof' solar panels, or
- You have 'rent-a-roof' solar panels on your roof...

So you're desperately trying to pretend that there is no problem.

As a reminder, here's what the mortgage companies say: https://www.cml.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/question-list/2115/