Solar Panel Leases - FTB

ThisIsWeird

RHemmings said:

Just a minor opinion on this. I want to have solar panels on my roof eventually, and a house with owned solar panels would have been a big plus for me. But, a home with leased (roof space) solar panels would, for me, be even worse than a house with no solar panels at all. Because then I can't put my own panels up for the length of the lease and I'm otherwise restricted by the terms of the leased agreement. 

Yes but.
I think you will find that most leased systems allow the homeowner to use as much generated leccy as they can. All the lessor does is collect the FIT, which no longer applies to new installations in any case, so you aren't losing out on this anyway.
So, apart from saving you the cost of the installation, which would have likely been circa £12k at the time, and around £7k now, the existing leased system will almost certainly be maintained by the installer for the (presumed) 25-year FIT term. You can anticipate at least one inverter change during that period, at a typical cost of ~£800ish.
And, since you are entitled to use all the generated leccy, including 'storing' it in a hot water cylinder, I would imagine (but you'd need to confirm) that you could also add batteries to the system to take full advantage of all the generation.
So, provided that the installed system is similar in size to the one you'd wish to install yourself, and provided the lessor would give permission to add batteries (if that's important to you), and provided you do not wish to convert the loft, then it's surely quids-in all the way?

RHemmings

ThisIsWeird said:

RHemmings said:

Just a minor opinion on this. I want to have solar panels on my roof eventually, and a house with owned solar panels would have been a big plus for me. But, a home with leased (roof space) solar panels would, for me, be even worse than a house with no solar panels at all. Because then I can't put my own panels up for the length of the lease and I'm otherwise restricted by the terms of the leased agreement. 

Yes but.
I think you will find that most leased systems allow the homeowner to use as much generated leccy as they can. All the lessor does is collect the FIT, which no longer applies to new installations in any case, so you aren't losing out on this anyway.
So, apart from saving you the cost of the installation, which would have likely been circa £12k at the time, and around £7k now, the existing leased system will almost certainly be maintained by the installer for the (presumed) 25-year FIT term. You can anticipate at least one inverter change during that period, at a typical cost of ~£800ish.
And, since you are entitled to use all the generated leccy, including 'storing' it in a hot water cylinder, I would imagine (but you'd need to confirm) that you could also add batteries to the system to take full advantage of all the generation.
So, provided that the installed system is similar in size to the one you'd wish to install yourself, and provided the lessor would give permission to add batteries (if that's important to you), and provided you do not wish to convert the loft, then it's surely quids-in all the way?

Yes, but, 

I want to make sure that I have the latest technology. I also want to make sure that includes the right arrangement (series or parallel) for the solar panels/cells in case of shading issues. I want to choose how many cells I add to the roof, and may choose to add panels on less economic sides of the roof too to maximise energy capture. Fundamentally I'm not short of cash, and don't expect it to all come back in future savings. Hence, I can afford to have control. Also, new panels would mean that I get the full lifetime from them. 

From what I've read, adding batteries is not a problem. However, I've not read anything like enough to be sure of this and 100% if I had considered buying a house with solar panels already up there, I would have gone through the contract with a fine tooth comb. 

I'm not yet knowledgeable enough about the restrictions on which energy tariffs are available to those with solar cells connected to the grid. While I have read of a claimed case that someone couldn't choose the cheapest tariff because of solar cells connected to the grid, and that this reduced their benefit from the cells. But, I notice lots of tariffs for those with solar panels so perhaps there is something that would give both FIT payments (to the installer) but also not be more expensive than the cheapest non-FIT tariff. 

At the time I was buying, I wanted to have the option of being fully off-grid. This is not yet planned out (e.g. only recently have I noticed that some people use well-insulated hot water cylinders, but I was thinking of it all going into a car battery, where not used. And, in-house batteries too if needed. 

The maintenance by the installer sounds a big plus, but overall, I wanted to have control over how I do things. 

I'm not saying that a house with leased solar panels isn't a good option for some people. E.g. people who wouldn't otherwise put panels up there. But, I decided that they aren't for me. Hence, as mentioend, leased solar panels would put me off, even though in the long run I want panels. 

EDIT: This thread is by someone who has leased solar panels, and the lease prevents any changes to the system. But, discussion suggests that batteries would be fine. However, if not integrated to the solar panels then there may be some trickiness involved in knowing when the system is exporting and the battery should be charged. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6424796/leased-panels-opportunity-for-battery 

This article (from 2018) talks about the problems of getting a mortgage on a property with leased solar panels, and is generally negative about them: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/25/homeowners-trapped-solar-panels It would be necessary to see what has changed in the meantime. 

From April 2024: Some lenders will not lend on houses with leased solar panels. https://www.charcol.co.uk/mortgages/specialist-property-mortgages/solar-panels-and-mortgage-lenders/  Not a problem when buying for cash, except when it comes to sell. 

ThisIsWeird

Ok, you win

RHemmings

ThisIsWeird said:

Ok, you win

I wasn't thinking of it as a game or competition, but an interesting discussion bringing out pros and cons of buying a house with leased solar panels. And, I was just trying to explain my reasoning - as my only claim was that I would prefer a house with no solar panels to one with leased solar panels. I wasn't saying that others should agree. 

I apologise in case my post(s) appeared to be combative in any way. That certainly wasn't my intention. 

ThisIsWeird

RHemmings said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Ok, you win

I wasn't thinking of it as a game or competition, but an interesting discussion bringing out pros and cons of buying a house with leased solar panels. And, I was just trying to explain my reasoning - as my only claim was that I would prefer a house with no solar panels to one with leased solar panels. I wasn't saying that others should agree. 

I apologise in case my post(s) appeared to be combative in any way. That certainly wasn't my intention. 

Ah, the perils of using a straight-lipped emoji

I did take your post in the manner intended - honest

RHemmings

ThisIsWeird said:

RHemmings said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Ok, you win

I wasn't thinking of it as a game or competition, but an interesting discussion bringing out pros and cons of buying a house with leased solar panels. And, I was just trying to explain my reasoning - as my only claim was that I would prefer a house with no solar panels to one with leased solar panels. I wasn't saying that others should agree. 

I apologise in case my post(s) appeared to be combative in any way. That certainly wasn't my intention. 

Ah, the perils of using a straight-lipped emoji

I did take your post in the manner intended - honest

Thank you. It's sometimes hard to interpret text on a screen, without non-verbal cues. 

Returning to the thread in general, I previously thought that solar panel leases were of the form discussed here. Free to the home-owner and then the home-owner can use as much electricity as they want. 

Some background reading suggests that currently at least some lease agreements work differently. 

This link: https://www.ecopreneurist.com/solar-panels/solar-leasing-worst-option-going-solar/   describes two types of solar lease available in 2024. 

One of them is where the home-owner pays to lease the panels, with a fixed payment per month. This payment is said to be less than their energy bill, and hence there should be a saving to the home-owner from the beginning. 

The other model is where the home-owner agrees to buy energy from the panels at a fixed price per kw/h. Again this is supposed to be cheaper than buying from the grid, so there should be an advantage to the home-owner.

In both these models it's pointed out that the majority of the benefit of the solar panels will go to the company leasing them to the home-owner, and that savings will be marginal. And, there are questions that the article doesn't answer. E.g. for the price per kw/h model - what happens with energy generated by the panels which the home-owner doesn't use? 

Going right back to the OP, we don't know what form of lease agreement there is for the panels (or even if they are leased). So, it might be worthwhile the OP checking to see not only if they are leased but how recent the lease agreement is, and what sort of lease it is. 

The '2024' lease agreements described in the article above seem much less generous to the home-owner than the earlier versions from 2010 and thereabouts. Presumably because of the closing of the FIT scheme in 2019. However, I see it is marginally positive that it's still (presumably) financially feasible for companies to offer these schemes. 

ThisIsWeird

Interesting - I am surprised they are still considered viable for 3rd party companies to fit. Yes, the OP should examine the conditions very closely. I suspect it's as you say - the arrangement with the energy provider will include their right to grab generation as demand calls.
We looked at a renovated, fully-electric house around 5 years ago. It had lots of panels, and a battery. The arrangement was complex, tho' automatic, but included the batteries being charged  from the grid at cheaper off-peak times if needed, but the grid then being entitled to pull some power from it at peak demand. There were costs for each - buying and selling. I couldn't get fully to the bottom of it, but my best calc was that, overall, it would be roughly equivalent to oil - and obviously much cleaner, less noise, less maintenance, less space taken up. 
Have to say I was assuming that the OP's potential setup was the earlier FIT-based arrangement, where installers worked out they'd have an annual return that more than covered the interest on the loan required to install them. Most such systems (at highest FIT, certainly) would break even after around 10 years, so then it's theoretical profit for a further 15. Apart from maintenance...
On that basis - ie no costs or charges to the owner, zero maintenance, no plans to change the roof, the entitlement to use all the generated power, and ideally the option of adding batteries - I would consider it an overall solid 'plus'.