Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 21 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2423 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Rent-a-roof PV installations.

Sparkingchip
A few days before Christmas I went to do some work at a house, I was under the stairs at the consumer unit and the customer was stood back in the hallway several metres away by the open front door, in the manner that things are now done.


I said “ I see you have solar panels”.


The customer replied “Yes, but the ###### things don’t work and the firm that owns them won’t repair them”.


I said “I presume they are on a Rent-a-roof scheme”.


“You’ve got it” replied the customer.


I was then working in the loft where the inverter is, but could not see an obvious quick fix, so just did what I was supposed to be doing up there and left the PV system well alone.


I wonder how many Rent-a-roof PV installations are not actually working anymore?


Andy Betteridge.

  • 0
    Sounds a bit peculiar - as far as I know the rent-a-roof mob get paid on the same basis as everyone else - i.e. on kWh generated with no fixed subsidies - so if the system packs in they loose all their income on that system - so there should be a decent financial incentive to keep them working (never mind any contractual obligations to the owner of the roof).


       - Andy.
  • 0
    With the early Rent-a-roof schemes the company that owns it gets the feed in payments and the home owners get “free electricity”.


    So there’s no incentive for the company that owns the system to maintain it, leaving many people with a useless PV system installed that they cannot remove, with many of these homeowners now being in their eighties and nineties these systems have become a liability rather than a benefit.


    Andy B.
  • 0
    Actually it may be worse than that - some of the schemes require the home owner to pay the company to compensate for lost income during any time the panels are out of operation for any reason during the period of the agreement (20 years or 25 years typical ) It is quite possible that an inverter may go pop at some point during this time - and may well have done so in this case.


    (There are nearly always other clauses as  well requiring compensation  f the house is sold, or the roof has to be repaired or modified  in a way that affects the panels.)

    In short, the deal is very much tilted in favour of the rent a roof company - which is why some of them were so pushy/ successful with their marketing depending which side you are on.

    From the investors' perspective to put perhaps 5K in to get 20k of FIT out over 20 years s indeed  worth being pushy about.

    regards

    Mike
  • 0
    Sparkingchip:

    With the early Rent-a-roof schemes the company that owns it gets the feed in payments and the home owners get “free electricity”.


    If this is the case, the company won't be getting any FiT payment, which is based on the energy generated?


    Dave


  • 0
    With the early Rent-a-roof schemes the company that owns it gets the feed in payments and the home owners get “free electricity”. So there’s no incentive for the company that owns the system to maintain it,

    But that was my point - if the system isn't generating then the feed in payments will be nil - so the owning company will be losing out. If they fixed it they'd be back to receiving 50p-ish/kWh.


       - Andy.
  • 0
    Who’s measuring the output?
  • 0
    Sparkingchip:

    Who’s measuring the output?


    There must be some agreement whereby the home owner submits readings from the generation meter?

    It does seem odd that the installing company doesn't want to resolve the issue. Maybe they have gone into liquidation, although Andy' B's customer sort of implied they were still around.


    Dave


  • 0
    I thought the older feed in payments were based on an assumed amount that was paid come rain or shine to make feed in meter readings unnecessary.
  • 0
    "I thought the older feed in payments were based on an assumed amount that was paid come rain or shine to make feed in meter readings unnecessary."


    No, Sparkingchip, the FIT is based on energy generated (now nearly 55p/unit for the early schemes) plus a nominal rate for the assumed contributed amount to the grid, based on half the generated energy at 3.9p/unit)


    This would need a meter read every 3 months.


    David
  • 0
    Perhaps this is one where the contract allows them to can recover lost FIT earnings from the hapless customer, so they are not bothered.

    Or perhaps they are not very clued up - which is possible, reading round it seems there were quite a few set-ups installed by the less organised solar installers where the meter ran backwards while exporting, and again the customer gets the joy of the extra bill, or at least an estimate of what the bill would have been if it was reading imported energy, as the installer should have informed the energy supplier, so they could change the meter but for whatever reason this did not happen.. Presumably most of those have been fixed by now, but it is hardly reassuring about the general quality.

    M.

Community Rules & Guidelines