Cancelling a solar installation

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

InkZ said:

Quotes were done via phone / email and once quote was agreed someone came out to do a site survey.  I got a call from the sales person the next day after this to pay the deposit.  I believe this counts as a distance sale still, but it doesn't seem straight forward.

Scaffolding went up within a week and I provided no consent to start any works within the cancellation period (because I was never told I had one!).  Basically they've installed opposite aspects of my house on a single string with no optimisers so half my panels are always in shade which means I get naff all generation on the largest part of my array.  They installed a different system than what was quoted and you can add dodgy certifications and a cowboy install to the list.  I don't have holes in my roof but the panels will probably blow away in the first major storm we have.

I've got a load of stuff together for a section 75 but stumbled across the cancellation stuff and wondered if it could be a back up if section 75 gets rejected for whatever reason.

Everything I've read seems to suggest I can cancel up to a year without a reason and get a full refund but can't find any pratical detail or examples on stuff that's been installed and how it's returned etc.

Your cancellation rights apply to the credit provider equally as they do to the trader.

Link above details contract types (pasted below) for you to match the series of events to in order to determine which type of contract you have.

off-premises contracts. There are four types of these contracts:

1. A contract made where a consumer and trader are together and agree the contract in a place that is not the trader's business premises - for example, in a consumer's home or place of work

2. A contract made where a consumer and trader are together and an offer is made by the consumer in a place that is not the trader's business premises - for example, where a consumer signs an order form during a visit to their home and the trader agrees the contract later

3. A contract that is agreed on a trader's business premises or through any means of distance communication immediately after a meeting with a consumer in a place that is not the trader's business premises. For example, a salesperson meets a consumer in the high street and convinces them of the benefits of buying a water filter; the consumer is then taken to the local office of the trader to sign the contract for the equipment. An example of this scenario using distance communication would be if the salesperson in the high street meets the consumer and immediately enters into a contract with them using a tablet computer

4. A contract made with the consumer during an excursion organised by the trader with the aim of selling or promoting goods or services to the consumer. The Regulations do not define an 'excursion'; however, it is possible that this will cover a situation where a trader meets a consumer on holiday and invites them to travel with the trader to a different venue to be sold goods or services

distance contracts. A contract made between a trader and a consumer where they are not together, which is negotiated and agreed by one or more organised means of distance communication - for example, by phone, post or over the internet. There must be an organised distance scheme for selling goods and/or services so the Regulations are unlikely to affect a business that sells a product at a distance as a one-off. For instance, a knitting wool shop that does not normally sell at a distance would not fall within the definition of a distance contract when a consumer rings to ask for a ball of wool to be posted to them because they are unable to call into the shop; this is unlikely to be classed as an 'organised' distance selling scheme

on-premises contracts. The Regulations define an 'on-premises contract' as "a contract which is neither off-premises nor a distance contract", which effectively means a contract made on business premises, whatever they may be

sevenhills

InkZ said:

  Basically they've installed opposite aspects of my house on a single string with no optimisers so half my panels are always in shade which means I get naff all generation on the largest part of my array.  They installed a different system than what was quoted and you can add dodgy certifications and a cowboy install to the list.

Half of the panels on the correct side and half on the wrong side.
Was there not enough room on the sunny side?

InkZ

sevenhills said:

InkZ said:

  Basically they've installed opposite aspects of my house on a single string with no optimisers so half my panels are always in shade which means I get naff all generation on the largest part of my array.  They installed a different system than what was quoted and you can add dodgy certifications and a cowboy install to the list.

Half of the panels on the correct side and half on the wrong side.
Was there not enough room on the sunny side?

It's on three sides of the house, and I can only have 2 strings on the inverter.  My roof is shaped like a pyramid so I can't have many on each side.

ComicGeek

So east + west on 1 string, and south on 1 string?

Which means that the east + west are virtually useless, and you would be better off with one of these two roofs removed from the system.

Optimisers would need to be installed to every panel on the east + west roofs to work though, very expensive solution. 

Typical sales tactic to oversell the PV system size.

InkZ

ComicGeek said:

So east + west on 1 string, and south on 1 string?

Which means that the east + west are virtually useless, and you would be better off with one of these two roofs removed from the system.

Optimisers would need to be installed to every panel on the east + west roofs to work though, very expensive solution. 

Typical sales tactic to oversell the PV system size.

Yes, virtually useless hence this post

InkZ

ok, from trawling through the legislation, it appears that not providing this information automatically puts them in breach of contract so I can add that to my section 75...

Manxman_in_exile

InkZ said:

ok, from trawling through the legislation, it appears that not providing this information automatically puts them in breach of contract so I can add that to my section 75...

Just to clarify: (1) what legislation precisely are you referring to, and (2) have you read all of this thread?

(eg are you relying on it being a distance or off-premises contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) and - if so - are you sure it is one?)

Undervalued

I honestly think that the idea that this can be retrospectively cancelled on a technicality, anytime up to almost a year from installation, is fantasy.

Give that scaffolding had to be erected at the OP's house before the work even started, I cannot see how it can be argued that the OP didn't consent to the work beginning in any cooling off period, if indeed there was one. 

Suppose there were no faults at all and the OP simply changed their mind. Do you really believe a court would insist that the supplying firm come back perhaps 11 months later, strips it all out, makes good any damage and refunds the OP in full?

The real issue that needs to be addressed is that the work is (allegedly) defective. If so, then obviously the OP is entitled to have that corrected. The normal expectation is that the supplying firm would be given one opportunity to correct any faults. If they can't or won't do that satisfactorily, then it would be perfectly reasonable to get some other firm sort out the problems and deduct their charges from the original bill.

Only in exceptional circumstances would it be reasonable to refuse the original contractor a single opportunity to make good any issues.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

Give that scaffolding had to be erected at the OP's house before the work even started, I cannot see how it can be argued that the OP didn't consent to the work beginning in any cooling off period, if indeed there was one. 

If the consumer has a distance contract then yes I agree that the consumer would probably have consented in such a situation. 

If the consumer has an off premises contract then the trader effectively has to be able to show proof the consumer gave consent, which they would have as it must be durable. Simply relying on claiming the consumer gave consent verbally or by the circumstances as they played out for example doesn't meet the requirements. 

Undervalued said:

I honestly think that the idea that this can be retrospectively cancelled on a technicality, anytime up to almost a year from installation, is fantasy.

I can only tell you what the legislation and follow up guidance says, equally the legislation is in everyday language and very easy to understand with no room for ambiguity. 

I don't see the cancellation of a service any different to the consumer purchasing goods and the trader not having the right of reduction for diminished value. 

Ultimately it appears to be a punishment that the trader suffers for not complying with the information requirements. Presumably for distance contracts it was considered that the consumer has less opportunity to get a feel of the goods or services so the information gives them certainty and a chance to cancel if it transpires what they purchased isn't what they anticipated at the time of purchasing.

The same can be said for off premises but equally there is the issue of pressure selling.

Some posters are very quick to dismiss the idea that the poor, down on his luck trader will suffer simply for not providing some, apparently insignificant, information but seem to forget a vulnerable person who is pressured into buying or doesn't have adequate decision making ability might well later come to their senses but not know their rights because they didn't get the information. The requirement for it to be durable presumably prevents the consumer from suffering further by the trader lying and saying it was given verbally. 

Consumer rights protect consumers and place responsibilities upon traders. 

It sounds as if in this case a company have sold a solar panel system that doesn't perform particularly well due to it's set up (lovely way to do business eh), the manner on which the set up was sold could in itself be misleading and leave entitlement to redress even if all the information from the cancellation regs had been provided. 

Dimanche_Prochain

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

Give that scaffolding had to be erected at the OP's house before the work even started, I cannot see how it can be argued that the OP didn't consent to the work beginning in any cooling off period, if indeed there was one. 

If the consumer has a distance contract then yes I agree that the consumer would probably have consented in such a situation. 

If the consumer has an off premises contract then the trader effectively has to be able to show proof the consumer gave consent, which they would have as it must be durable. Simply relying on claiming the consumer gave consent verbally or by the circumstances as they played out for example doesn't meet the requirements. 

Undervalued said:

I honestly think that the idea that this can be retrospectively cancelled on a technicality, anytime up to almost a year from installation, is fantasy.

I can only tell you what the legislation and follow up guidance says, equally the legislation is in everyday language and very easy to understand with no room for ambiguity. 

I don't see the cancellation of a service any different to the consumer purchasing goods and the trader not having the right of reduction for diminished value. 

Ultimately it appears to be a punishment that the trader suffers for not complying with the information requirements. Presumably for distance contracts it was considered that the consumer has less opportunity to get a feel of the goods or services so the information gives them certainty and a chance to cancel if it transpires what they purchased isn't what they anticipated at the time of purchasing.

The same can be said for off premises but equally there is the issue of pressure selling.

Some posters are very quick to dismiss the idea that the poor, down on his luck trader will suffer simply for not providing some, apparently insignificant, information but seem to forget a vulnerable person who is pressured into buying or doesn't have adequate decision making ability might well later come to their senses but not know their rights because they didn't get the information. The requirement for it to be durable presumably prevents the consumer from suffering further by the trader lying and saying it was given verbally. 

Consumer rights protect consumers and place responsibilities upon traders. 

It sounds as if in this case a company have sold a solar panel system that doesn't perform particularly well due to it's set up (lovely way to do business eh), the manner on which the set up was sold could in itself be misleading and leave entitlement to redress even if all the information from the cancellation regs had been provided. 

The courts do not operate like this.

You've been told over and over but it hasn't quite sunk in yet.

Courts do not simply dole out justice according to what the law says verbatim. If they did, precedents would not be a thing and we wouldn't have a tiered court system.  They are free to interpret the law vis a vis what its authors intended, and as Undervalued says, there is no way that this was the intention of the authors of said law.

The OP has no claim under this legislation.   They might do if they had second thoughts but were misinformed about their rights so did not believe they had a right to cancel, but that's clearly not what happened here.  The OP only had an issue when it transpired that the company had installed an unsuitable product.  They would have been similarly miffed if the company had given them 14 days to cool off or 1400.  It was the installation that alerted them to the problem.

They possibly have consumer rights in the unsuitability aspect (although who doesn't understand which part of their roof is "always in the shade"? You just have to view it at various parts of the day, surely?) but trying it on with this is unlikely to end well.  The card company will throw it out and so will the courts.