Who Is Taking Responsibility for the Tomatopia/Senapt Collapse — And Who Will Stop This Happening Again?

The more I investigate the collapse of Tomato Energy, Tomatopia and Senapt, the more one question keeps coming back:

Who is actually responsible?

Not just responsible for one customer complaint.

Not just responsible for one failed company.

But responsible for the wider situation now facing affected households who were sold what appeared to be a managed long-term solar and battery energy solution, only to be left in limbo when the corporate structure behind it collapsed.

Because right now, responsibility appears scattered everywhere.

Ofgem deals with the licensed energy supplier.

DESNZ refers to regulation, policy and legal routes.

The Energy Ombudsman appears limited in what it can consider.

Administrators deal with insolvency estates.

Property issues may sit elsewhere.

Monitoring and software access may sit elsewhere again.

Solar and battery ownership appears tied to separate asset companies.

And customers are left trying to piece together what happens next.

That cannot be right.

THE CORE PROBLEM

Customers were not sold a simple electricity tariff.

They were not sold a straightforward solar installation.

They were not just buying panels from an installer.

They were entering what appeared to be an integrated managed energy arrangement involving:

• solar panels;

• battery storage;

• fixed long-term electricity arrangements;

• remote monitoring;

• maintenance and support;

• software platforms;

• roof or airspace lease arrangements;

• and long-term contractual promises.

But when Tomato Energy collapsed and Senapt-related entities entered administration, that integrated promise fragmented.

The electricity supply moved through the Supplier of Last Resort process.

But the wider solar and battery arrangement did not simply resolve itself.

Customers have been left asking:

• Who owns the equipment?

• Who maintains it?

• Who pays if the battery fails?

• Who fixes the inverter?

• Who controls monitoring access?

• What happens if the customer wants out?

• Can the equipment be removed free of charge?

• What happens if there is no registered legal charge or lease on the property?

• Can contracts or assets be sold to another company?

• Can customers refuse to be transferred?

• Who oversees any market exit?

• And who protects affected households?

These are not fringe questions.

They go to the heart of consumer protection in domestic renewable energy.

MARKET EXIT – WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN?

Following media coverage, Ofgem referred to Tomatopia and its legal representatives contacting relevant customers about the next steps and what a "market exit" would mean for them.

That phrase now needs urgent explanation.

What does "market exit" mean in practice?

Does it mean contracts are being terminated?

Does it mean contracts are being sold?

Does it mean assets are being transferred?

Does it mean customers are being moved to another provider?

Does it mean customers can opt out?

Does it mean the panels and batteries stay where they are?

Does it mean customers can request removal?

Does it mean another company takes over maintenance?

Does it mean customers lose the fixed arrangements they were promised?

Customers should not be left guessing.

LESSONS FROM HELMS, THE GREEN DEAL AND PREVIOUS SCANDALS

This is not the first time households have faced problems after entering long-term green energy arrangements.

The HELMS scandal and wider Green Deal controversy resulted in parliamentary scrutiny, National Audit Office criticism, investigations by regulators and years of litigation.

Households found themselves trapped in arrangements they often did not fully understand.

Property sales became difficult.

Mortgage lenders raised concerns.

Questions arose over workmanship, accountability and consumer protection.

The Public Accounts Committee criticised the administration of the Green Deal.

The National Audit Office raised concerns about value for money and oversight.

Trading Standards, the FCA and the Insolvency Service all became involved in different aspects.

Recommendations were made to strengthen safeguards and improve consumer protections.

Yet despite those lessons, a familiar pattern appears to have re-emerged:

• attractive low or no upfront proposition;

• complex ownership structures;

• multiple corporate entities;

• long-term commitments;

• fragmented accountability;

• company failure;

• consumers left asking who is responsible.

The question is not whether the warning signs existed.

The question is why those lessons were not fully learned.

WHAT DOES EUROPE DO DIFFERENTLY?

This is not about Brexit.

The UK was part of the EU when many of these frameworks developed.

But several European countries appear to have adopted stronger approaches around self-consumption and consumer rights.

EU energy legislation increasingly recognises consumers as active participants rather than passive bill payers.

The Clean Energy Package introduced rights for self-consumers and energy communities.

Some member states require clearer contract information, stronger transparency requirements and better protections around switching and market participation.

In countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, there are generally clearer frameworks governing distributed generation and customer rights.

That does not mean Europe has solved every problem.

But there appears to be greater recognition that domestic renewable customers require specific protections when they become producers, consumers and technology users simultaneously.

The UK now needs to ask:

Has it developed a sufficiently clear post-Brexit framework for domestic renewable self-consumers?

Or are consumers being left to navigate fragmented regulatory structures inherited from a market originally designed around traditional energy suppliers?

LESSONS FROM THE UNITED STATES

These problems are not unique to Britain.

Across the United States, solar subscription models, leases and power purchase agreements have generated legal disputes and regulatory concerns.

Customers have raised issues around:

• contract transfers;

• equipment ownership;

• maintenance obligations;

• software access;

• property sales;

• long-term commitments;

• and company failures.

Some states have strengthened disclosure requirements and introduced additional safeguards.

Consumer groups have called for stronger oversight.

The lesson is not that these models are inherently bad.

Nor is it to suggest companies are doing anything wrong simply because they operate subscription models.

The lesson is that when physical infrastructure, software, finance and property rights are combined, the same questions emerge again and again:

Who owns what?

Who is responsible?

What happens when things change?

Who protects the customer?

That suggests these are structural challenges rather than isolated incidents.

A WIDER MARKET ISSUE

This is not about opposing Net Zero.

Quite the opposite.

If domestic renewables are going to expand, people must be able to trust the schemes being offered.

Many households cannot afford £10,000 to £20,000 upfront.

Subscription and managed-service models are therefore likely to grow.

We are already seeing similar concepts emerging elsewhere.

I am not alleging any current company is doing anything wrong.

But the policy question is unavoidable.

Where is the regulation?

Who checks continuity plans?

Who checks maintenance obligations?

Who checks customer rights?

Who checks contract transfer mechanisms?

Who checks property implications?

Who checks that consumers understand who owns what?

If the answer is "several organisations each cover part of it", then perhaps nobody truly owns the whole picture.

THE NEXT CHAPTER?

Publicly available information shows newly incorporated businesses involving overlapping directorships connected to parts of the wider Tomato ecosystem.

One website even states:

"The next chapter of Tomatopia is coming soon."

That statement raises legitimate questions.

Not allegations.

Questions.

Are regulators aware?

Have lessons been learned?

Will future customers be better protected?

Should unresolved customers from previous arrangements be dealt with first?

WHO IS TAKING OWNERSHIP?

This is the point I keep coming back to.

Is it Ofgem?

DESNZ?

DBT?

The Insolvency Service?

The FCA?

Trading Standards?

The Energy Ombudsman?

The administrators?

Parliament?

Because right now affected households appear to be passed between systems.

If every organisation says, "That part is outside our remit," then what exists is a regulatory gap large enough for ordinary households to fall through.

And that is exactly what appears to have happened.

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NOW

Customers need clear answers on:

• ownership of equipment;

• maintenance responsibility;

• monitoring access;

• safety obligations;

• contract status;

• transfer rights;

• opt-out rights;

• removal rights;

• property implications;

• Warm Home Discount issues;

• and the meaning of market exit.

Government and regulators should now consider:

• a mandatory register of supplier-linked domestic renewable schemes;

• mandatory insolvency continuity plans;

• protected maintenance funds;

• guaranteed monitoring rights;

• stronger ombudsman coverage;

• standardised property disclosures;

• clear rules on contract transfers;

• customer consent protections;

• and one named regulator or lead authority responsible for overall consumer outcomes.

PARLIAMENT MUST ASK THE QUESTIONS

I have raised these concerns with my MP, Michael Payne.

He has already contacted Ministers.

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has confirmed that these issues will be considered as part of its future work.

Media attention has increased.

FOI requests continue.

But affected customers need more than warm words.

They need answers.

They need accountability.

And they need confidence that the same thing will not simply happen again.

FINAL THOUGHT

Ordinary households should not have to become investigators.

They should not have to read Companies House filings.

They should not have to submit FOI requests.

They should not have to chase administrators, regulators, MPs and government departments simply to understand who owns equipment attached to their roof.

If the UK wants consumers to embrace Net Zero, trust must exist before things go wrong, not afterwards.

Tomatopia and Senapt customers are still waiting for answers.

And the question remains:

Who is going to take responsibility?

Disclaimer: Written in a personal capacity. The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the RMT or any other organisation unless explicitly stated.

Tomatopia

Tomato Energy

Senapt

Solar Energy

Consumer Protection

Energy Regulation

Net Zero

Ofgem

DESNZ

Supplier of Last Resort

Insolvency

Freedom of Information

HELMS

Public Policy

Accountability