The Next Chapter of Tomatopia? Why Solar Subscription Schemes Need Urgent Regulation

The collapse of Tomato Energy, Tomatopia and associated Senapt entities has left many affected customers asking difficult questions.

Who is now responsible for the solar panels and batteries installed on people’s homes?

Who maintains them?

Who controls the monitoring systems?

Who pays if equipment fails?

What happens if someone wants to sell their home?

What happens if a Warm Home Discount payment was due but never received?

And perhaps most importantly: who, if anyone, was responsible for making sure consumers were protected if this type of long-term renewable energy scheme failed?

These are not small questions. They go to the heart of consumer confidence in domestic renewable energy.

For months I have been trying to understand what happened after my household’s Tomatopia solar and battery arrangement became caught up in the collapse of Tomato Energy and the administration of Senapt-related entities.

At the point of sale, the scheme appeared to be one integrated managed energy solution. It involved solar panels, battery storage, fixed long-term electricity arrangements, monitoring, support and ongoing management.

But when the companies began to fail, that apparent single package fragmented into multiple different parts:

- energy supply;

- solar and battery equipment;

- asset ownership;

- monitoring software;

- lease arrangements;

- administrators;

- regulators;

- and separate contractual structures.

That is the problem.

Consumers thought they were entering one managed arrangement. But when things went wrong, it became extremely difficult to identify who was responsible for the whole situation.

The Supplier of Last Resort process protected the electricity supply side of Tomato Energy’s collapse. Customers were moved to a new supplier.

But that did not resolve the wider Tomatopia issues.

It did not clearly answer who was responsible for the solar and battery equipment.

It did not clearly resolve maintenance responsibility.

It did not clearly protect monitoring access.

It did not clearly explain what happens to long-term fixed arrangements.

It did not clearly explain what happens if the asset-owning company enters administration.

And it did not clearly give affected customers one place to turn.

That is why I believe this is now much bigger than my own case.

Through Freedom of Information requests, Environmental Information requests, Companies House monitoring, administrator correspondence, regulator responses and engagement with other affected customers, a clear pattern appears to be emerging.

Different organisations each seem to hold a piece of the puzzle, but no single body appears clearly responsible for the overall consumer outcome.

Ofgem appears focused on the licensed energy supplier and the Supplier of Last Resort process.

The Energy Ombudsman appears limited in what it can consider where the issue relates to solar equipment, lease arrangements or management of installed assets.

DESNZ has confirmed that information relating to Tomato Energy was shared between Ofgem and government, but wider questions remain about what consumer protection planning existed for households tied into linked renewable arrangements.

The National Audit Office confirmed it held no material relating to Tomato Energy, Tomatopia or associated consumer risk concerns.

Administrators deal with insolvency estates.

But affected households are left trying to work out what happens to the system on their roof.

That is not good enough.

This matters because domestic renewable energy models are changing.

Many households cannot afford to pay outright for solar panels and batteries. So lease, subscription and managed-service models are likely to become more common as part of the UK’s transition to Net Zero.

Those models may well have a role to play. They could help more people access clean energy without large upfront costs.

But they must be properly regulated.

They must have proper consumer protections.

They must have clear continuity arrangements if companies fail.

They must have clear rules on maintenance, ownership, monitoring access, data, removal rights, property sales and insolvency.

They must not leave households trapped in uncertainty.

This is why I am increasingly concerned when I see similar subscription-style solar models being actively marketed in the wider market.

I am not alleging wrongdoing by any current company. I am not saying all schemes are the same. I am not anti-solar and I am not anti-Net Zero.

But the public policy question is obvious:

Has the regulatory framework caught up with these long-term domestic renewable subscription models?

If a company offers solar panels and batteries with no upfront cost, long-term payments, maintenance promises, monitoring systems and energy management, then consumers need to know exactly what happens if that company, or any associated company, fails.

Who steps in?

Who maintains the system?

Who protects the consumer?

Who ensures monitoring continues?

Who deals with faults?

Who helps if a house sale is affected?

Who makes sure vulnerable support payments, such as Warm Home Discount, are not lost in the process?

Those questions must be answered before these models are allowed to grow further.

Another development has made this even more concerning.

Public Companies House records show newly incorporated companies operating in related energy and technology sectors involving overlapping directorships connected to the Tomato / Senapt ecosystem.

A public-facing website connected to one of these new ventures states:

“The next chapter of Tomatopia is coming soon…”

That wording is deeply concerning to affected customers who remain in limbo.

Existing Tomatopia/Senapt customers are still trying to understand their position. Many still have unresolved questions about ownership, maintenance, monitoring, liabilities, property implications and long-term contractual obligations.

So if anything resembling a “next chapter” is now emerging, there must be serious scrutiny.

Again, I am not alleging wrongdoing simply because new companies have been incorporated. But I do believe this raises legitimate public-interest questions:

- Are regulators aware of these developments?

- Has government reviewed what happened with Tomato / Tomatopia / Senapt?

- Are lessons being learned?

- Are future consumers protected?

- Are existing affected customers being dealt with before similar models emerge again?

- Is there a risk that the same structural weaknesses could repeat?

These are exactly the kinds of questions Parliament should be asking.

I have already raised these concerns with my MP, Michael Payne MP, who has formally written on my behalf to both the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.

I am also preparing to raise the matter with the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee because I believe this now warrants wider parliamentary scrutiny.

This is not just about one failed company.

It is about whether the UK is ready for a growing market in domestic renewable subscription schemes.

It is about whether consumers are protected when complex energy, technology, leasing and asset ownership models fail.

It is about whether ordinary households should have to become investigators just to find out who owns equipment on their roof and who fixes it if it breaks.

It is about whether the drive towards Net Zero is being matched by strong enough consumer safeguards.

My concern is simple.

If the UK wants households to trust domestic renewable energy schemes, then those households must be protected when things go wrong.

There should be clear rules.

There should be a named responsible regulator.

There should be mandatory continuity arrangements.

There should be fallback operators or transfer mechanisms.

There should be guaranteed monitoring access.

There should be clear information about ownership, leases, charges and removal rights.

There should be proper protection for consumers if companies collapse.

There should be lessons learned from Tomato Energy, Tomatopia and Senapt.

Because without those safeguards, the risk is obvious.

More households could sign up to long-term renewable schemes believing they are protected, only to discover later that responsibility has been split across multiple companies, regulators, administrators and contracts.

That cannot be allowed to become normal.

The transition to Net Zero needs public trust.

Public trust requires accountability.

And accountability requires proper regulation.

Tags: Tomato Energy, Tomatopia, Senapt, 1Sun, Solar Panels, Solar Subscription, Solar Lease, Battery Storage, Domestic Renewables, Net Zero, Ofgem, DESNZ, Energy Regulation, Consumer Protection, Insolvency, Supplier of Last Resort, Warm Home Discount, Renewable Energy, Energy Policy, UK Energy Market, Smart Energy, Home Batteries, Energy Ombudsman, Companies House, Regulatory Oversight, Consumer Rights, Hybrid Energy Models, Parliamentary Scrutiny, Michael Payne MP, Energy Security and Net Zero Committee