Have any of our readers found that households that have rented out their roofs to solar companies are finding it impossible to sell?
Thousands of households are thought to have agreed to rent their roofs to solar panel companies, usually for 25 years, in return for free electricity. Now there are warnings that such homes may not be mortgageable.
According to a story in Guardian Money, owners of such properties are being turned down for remortgages, which suggests that prospective purchasers of such properties are also likely to be rejected.
Guardian Money was contacted by a Southampton couple who were refused by several companies when they tried to remortgage, even though their existing mortgage provider, RBS, apparently agreed to the scheme.
Applications for a remortgage have been apparently turned down by Skipton and Nationwide, although RBS has offered them a mortgage on the basis that it approved the solar installation.
The couple are now worried they won’t be able to sell if potential buyers also struggle to find a loan.
Guardian Money says that although the case is probably the first of its kind, others could follow, resulting in a raft of legal disputes over the ‘rent a roof’ scheme.
Peter Ambrose, of conveyancing firm The Partnership, said: "There is an increase in litigation expected from frustrated sellers whose buyers cannot get mortgages on their potential purchases because of these restrictive leases."
Guidance to brokers by the Skipton, updated on February 20, says: “The society will NOT lend where the panel provider is supplying and fitting panels free of charge, is taking income from the grid tariff scheme and is creating a long-term lease against the roof and roof air space.”
If anyone has first-hand knowledge of this situation, could they please post below or contact the Editor in confidence:
rosalind.renshaw@gmail.com
Comments
Like any "green" idea it is generally stupid, but anything that brings house prices down is good. Just look at Japn.
Natural selection at work again.
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. A total mugs game to get involved with any rent a roof scheme/scam. On the rare occasions the public ask my advice re solar panels I say pay cash for them, but only if you plan to stay at the house for many years to come, & want them for yourself rather than for resale.
Had an elderly gent call in to ask about solar panels and I said forget the whole idea. What about this that and the other benefits he asked, I smiled and said only ever had one house with these panels and nobody was in the slightest bit interested and they all thought they were ugly.
A local estate agent had some fitted squillions of years ago and he had a huge flood as they failed in a very heavy frost and he was as you can imagine a bit peeved.
Given the choice of 2 properties one with and one without the one without will sell more readily. Thats withut the legal problems as well.
I heard that the person who has them installed can go on collecting revenue even when they have sold on!!! Anyone know about this little gem?
Nick - I think you are partially correct, but I have heard that most rent-a-roof companies have actually sold the FiT income to financial companies, and so when they "disappear" they will have the cash and no liabilities. Thus leaving the home owner having to deal with a financial company to arrange maintenance, or removal of panels.
Total panic again. It is just the press latching onto a sensationalised story. The simple fact is that due to the litigation costs, maintenance and the reduction of the FIT etc most of these so called Green Companies will go out of business within a couple of years and the lucky home owners can keep the profits.
Nick.
The main problem with solar panelling is surely their design. Rather like double glazing a few years ago, homeowners are being persuaded by the companies to fit the cheapest, which is usually the ugliest, panelling onto their roofs. There are now many different types of solar panels, including individual, grey slates that look almost identical to natural slate and have been accepted by some of the National Parks on listed buildings - a real stamp of approval if you know how difficult these authorities are! Market forces will prevail.
Why you would want to lease? 4kw costs less than £9,000 all in with a company like www.GBSsolar.com.
If you have already got a 'Rent a Roof system' ask about the costs of relocating it?
The biggest problem is not the mortgage. They are just damn ugly. Getting viewiers through the door is the problem.
If possible, I recommend vendors contact their fitter and buy themselves out of the contract, and get the panels removed. It will cost a lot, but it's worthwhile.
I agree with Ray, but like a lot of "obvious" things the immediate shiny gloss covering hides a huge amount of fine print that most people will happily ignore on purpose.
The general public want to be told nice happy things, not reality.
Agent overpricing being a regular topic on this website proves this neatly.
Free electricity = £50-£100 per month or £600 - £1200 per year.
That equates to a max of £30k over 25 years.
I wonder what the penalty clauses are to get the panels removed...
This was obvious from the beginning. It is virtually a 'second charge' on the property held by the panel company that fitted the panels for 'free'..
Legal advice should have been taken before entering upon the agreement because most people did not realise this, and still do not?.