FIFTEEN YEARS OF WARNINGS – AND NOW OUR SOLAR ARRANGEMENTS COULD BE SOLD ON. WHO IS PROTECTING US?

For months I have been asking one question.

When a green-energy business model collapses and homeowners are left with somebody else’s solar panels and batteries attached to their homes, long-term agreements, disputed property rights and no obvious way out, who is actually responsible?

I still cannot get a straight answer

But what I have now uncovered makes that question much more urgent.

This is no longer only about looking backwards at Tomato Energy, Tomatopia and Senapt Assets.

There is now a possible third-party transaction involving the Senapt portfolio.

Before somebody acquires whatever rights, contracts and assets are said to exist, affected households deserve to know:

WHO IS PROTECTING US?

THE WARNING SIGNS GO BACK TO 2011

HM Land Registry documents obtained through Freedom of Information show officials were dealing with the growth of domestic solar airspace leases as far back as March 2011.

They were already expecting potentially large numbers of applications and acknowledged that there was no clear guidance, creating the possibility of inconsistent handling.

By May 2011, solar-panel leases were being described internally as a growing area.

Hundreds of applications were already being processed.

HMLR’s internal material also recognised that homeowners might face a considerable cost if they wanted to terminate one of these arrangements early.

That was fifteen years ago.

And today homeowners are still asking how much it will cost to escape from a failed solar arrangement.

THE PROBLEMS KEPT COMING BACK

In 2015, HMLR identified a solar airspace lease issue which could carry significant risk, including implications for subsequent purchasers.

By 2018, internal material acknowledged complaints about inconsistent treatment of airspace applications and unclear guidance.

Then in 2023 the concerns became much more serious.

DESNZ contacted HMLR concerning allegations involving A Shade Greener and potentially tens of thousands of households.

HMLR’s records say DESNZ regarded the allegations as credible.

By 2024 HMLR was monitoring complaints from homeowners saying they had not understood the leases, documents had been changed and their ability to sell their homes had been affected.

Some case material records homeowners saying sales actually fell through.

These were allegations rather than findings of wrongdoing.

But the scale of the warning signs cannot be ignored.

ALMOST 62,000 TITLES

The issue was not marginal.

An April 2024 HMLR briefing records A Shade Greener companies as registered proprietor on almost 62,000 titles.

Yet when I asked HMLR for recorded lessons learned from HELMS, Green Deal and earlier domestic renewable schemes, it said it held no such recorded material.

I also asked about insolvency where somebody other than the homeowner owns the renewable equipment.

Again, HMLR said it held no recorded information specifically considering that situation.

That is remarkably close to the problem Tomato/Tomatopia/Senapt households now face.

NATIONAL TRADING STANDARDS WARNED GOVERNMENT

National Trading Standards has separately provided me with its April 2025 Energy Fraud position statement.

It says consumer complaints and intelligence about problems in energy markets had been steadily increasing.

It says the market needs better and more consistent regulation.

It says serious energy fraud cannot realistically be left to Trading Standards alone because of limitations in powers, funding and the complexity of prosecutions.

NTS proposed actual solutions:

• a specialist Ofgem investigation team;

• specialist City of London Police capability;

• stronger accreditation;

• minimum standards;

• compulsory ADR or a single ombudsman;

• better consumer information;

• a potential consumer rescue fund;

• and a national working group bringing together the organisations responsible for different parts of the market.

One section was headed:

LEARNING FROM PAST SCAMS.

NTS compared the risks with PPI and pensions, where foreseeable consumer harm continued for years before effective action was taken.

Its warning was simple.

This must not be repeated in the energy market.

THEN CAME SILENCE

Lord Michael Bichard, Chair of National Trading Standards, wrote directly to Ed Miliband in December 2025.

He recorded that NTS had already raised these issues with DESNZ earlier that year.

The Department had agreed to consider what could be done.

But by December NTS had received no further feedback.

NTS has now told me that it received no response to Lord Bichard’s December letter and no response from the other recipients copied into it.

It has also said that without specific engagement and funding, it is not taking further action on the market as a whole.

I ASKED ABOUT THE EXACT PROBLEM HAPPENING NOW

I then asked National Trading Standards whether there is specific national guidance for a situation where:

• a renewable provider fails;

• somebody else owns the equipment on your house;

• the agreement is disputed or missing;

• a substantial payment is demanded to exit;

• and a house sale or mortgage is at risk.

The answer was clear.

National Trading Standards does not hold specific guidance covering that situation.

The nearest document it could provide relates to estate and letting agency redress, not failed renewable-energy schemes.

So after years of warning signs, there is still no clear national framework for the precise situation some households are now facing.

AND NOW THE SENAPT PORTFOLIO MAY BE SOLD

This is what makes the issue urgent.

Correspondence from FTS Recovery in another affected homeowner’s case states that an interested third party is undertaking due diligence on the wider Senapt portfolio.

That homeowner is trying to sell his home.

His buyer’s mortgage lender is unhappy because the solar and battery equipment is owned by somebody else.

There is no registered solar leasehold title or charge against his property.

He repeatedly requested his signed agreement.

FTS said it held Senapt’s standard-form lease and was seeking the executed agreement while continuing to rely upon the termination provisions.

FTS also confirmed that the third party’s due diligence was continuing.

In that individual case, the administrators offered to resolve the position for £4,500 plus VAT.

FTS later maintained that the equipment remained Senapt property and should not simply be removed or interfered with.

I am not alleging that FTS has acted unlawfully.

Administrators have duties to creditors.

But homeowners have rights too.

And nobody appears to be responsible for examining the whole consumer position.

WHAT EXACTLY IS BEING SOLD?

Before anybody buys this portfolio, somebody should answer that.

Are they buying:

• the panels;

• the batteries;

• the contracts;

• the alleged leases;

• future income;

• termination rights;

• monitoring data;

• warranties;

• maintenance obligations;

• or all of it?

And if they acquire the rights, are they acquiring the obligations too?

Consumers cannot be left with a situation where the burdens survive but the promised benefits disappear.

HOW MANY AGREEMENTS ACTUALLY EXIST?

We also need to know the scale.

How many households are in the portfolio?

How many executed agreements can actually be produced?

How many rely only on standard-form documentation?

How many supposed leases were registered?

How many homeowners dispute the arrangement?

How many sales or remortgages have already been affected?

How many exit or buyout payments have been demanded?

That should be established before a portfolio is sold.

CONTRACT VALIDATION AND ASSIGNMENT

Before contractual rights are asserted or sold, somebody should establish that the individual contract exists and that the terms being relied upon are the terms the homeowner actually agreed to.

There also needs to be scrutiny of whether the relevant agreement permits assignment and, separately, what obligations can lawfully be transferred.

Those questions may vary from household to household.

The existence of a standard-form agreement cannot automatically answer what happened in every individual case.

PROPERTY REGISTRATION

HM Land Registry’s own material makes the registration issue particularly important.

If these arrangements were intended to create leases longer than seven years, there should be an audit of the Senapt portfolio against HM Land Registry records.

For each property, somebody should be able to say:

• whether a lease or other registrable interest was intended;

• whether it was registered;

• what effect non-registration has;

• what contractual or equitable rights are nevertheless being asserted;

• and exactly what the proposed purchaser is being told it is acquiring.

MY OWN TEN-YEAR “LEASE”

HMLR’s internal legal material says leases granted for more than seven years are compulsorily registrable and do not operate at law as legally enforceable interests until registered.

My Tomato/Tomatopia arrangement was described as a ten-year airspace lease.

No lease or legal charge was registered against my property.

That does not automatically mean no contractual or equitable rights exist.

But somebody needs to determine what actually exists.

Because if rights are being marketed to another company, the purchaser needs to know exactly what it is buying and the consumer needs to know exactly what can be enforced against them.

WHAT ABOUT OUR PERSONAL DATA?

A portfolio sale could also involve the transfer of:

• names;

• addresses;

• contracts;

• equipment information;

• financial information;

• energy data;

• and possibly monitoring data.

Who tells us what is being transferred?

Who becomes the new data controller?

What is the legal basis?

What rights do we have?

These are not minor details.

WHO KEEPS THE EQUIPMENT SAFE?

What happens today if a battery develops a fault?

If an inverter fails?

If a panel becomes unsafe?

If the roof leaks?

If there is an electrical problem?

Who carries out the repair?

Who insures the equipment?

Who is liable if it damages the property?

That responsibility cannot disappear because the asset-owning company has entered administration.

WHAT HAPPENS TO WARRANTIES AND MAINTENANCE?

When these schemes were sold, consumers were often promised a package.

Installation.

Maintenance.

Monitoring.

Warranties.

Energy savings.

Perhaps eventual removal or transfer.

If another company acquires the rights against the homeowner, it should not simply be able to acquire the profitable parts.

Who ensures the obligations follow too?

THE ORIGINAL CONSUMER BARGAIN

Consumers entered these schemes because of a package of promised benefits.

That may have included:

• cheaper electricity;

• a particular tariff or energy arrangement;

• free installation;

• maintenance;

• monitoring;

• warranties;

• and removal or transfer arrangements at the end of the term.

If a successor company acquires the rights against the homeowner, who ensures that the homeowner continues to receive the benefits which formed part of the original bargain?

It would be fundamentally unfair for consumer obligations to survive while the benefits which induced the consumer to enter the agreement disappear.

CAN WE LEAVE?

This may be the biggest question of all.

If the original business model has collapsed, can the homeowner say:

I don’t want this arrangement anymore?

Can we terminate without paying thousands of pounds?

Can we buy the equipment at a fair value?

Can we ask for it to be removed?

Who decides whether an exit charge is fair?

At present there is no obvious national route for getting those questions answered.

IF WE WANT IT REMOVED, WHO PAYS?

Solar equipment is not like returning a broadband router.

Panels can mean scaffolding.

Roof work.

Electrical work.

Battery disconnection.

Repairs.

Reinstatement.

Safety certificates.

If the homeowner wants out, who pays for all of that?

If the asset owner refuses or cannot afford removal, is the homeowner simply stuck with somebody else’s equipment indefinitely?

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE TRIES TO SELL THEIR HOME?

This is already a live issue.

A mortgage lender may refuse to lend.

A buyer may walk away.

A conveyancer may require documentation which cannot be produced.

An administrator may require a payment before providing a release.

A house sale operates to deadlines.

Yet the regulatory system can take months to decide whose responsibility the problem is.

There should be a fast-track process for affected households.

EXIT CHARGES AND VALUATION

Where thousands of pounds are demanded to release a property, there also needs to be transparency about how the figure has been calculated.

Is it based on:

• the residual value of the equipment;

• remaining contractual income;

• projected profit;

• a contractual formula;

• legal costs;

• loss to creditors;

• or a negotiated settlement figure?

Consumers should have a way to challenge disproportionate amounts independently.

AND WHAT IF SOMEBODY LOSES A BUYER?

Who pays for the damage already done?

A homeowner might lose:

• legal fees;

• survey costs;

• mortgage fees;

• a buyer;

• a purchase further up the chain;

• additional borrowing costs;

• or thousands of pounds because a transaction collapsed.

Consumer protection needs to mean redress for actual loss.

A rescue or compensation fund deserves serious consideration.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE HOMEOWNER DIES?

These agreements can last ten, twenty or twenty-five years.

What happens when the homeowner dies?

When the property passes through probate?

When somebody loses capacity?

When there is a divorce?

When the property is repossessed?

When somebody enters residential care?

These are predictable events.

The system should already have rules for them.

WHAT HAPPENS AT THE END?

Even if everything runs perfectly, what happens when the agreement expires?

Who owns the panels and battery?

Does ownership pass to the homeowner?

Are they removed?

Who pays?

Who repairs the roof?

What happens if the asset owner no longer exists?

Consumers should know that before they sign, not ten years later.

EVERYBODY REGULATES A PIECE. NOBODY OWNS THE OUTCOME.

HM Land Registry registers property interests.

Ofgem regulates licensed energy supply.

Trading Standards deals with consumer law.

Insolvency practitioners administer failed companies.

Their professional bodies regulate insolvency practitioners.

Mortgage lenders protect their security.

Courts resolve disputes.

Everybody seems to own one piece.

But the homeowner owns the whole problem.

That is the regulatory gap.

WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE

We need one clearly identified lead body.

We need consumer oversight of portfolio sales following provider failure.

We need individual contracts validated before rights are enforced or sold.

We need clear registration requirements.

We need consumers told who is acquiring their arrangement.

We need rights and obligations transferred together.

We need proper data protection.

We need continuity of maintenance, safety, insurance, warranties and monitoring.

We need a fair right to exit.

We need protection from disproportionate termination charges.

We need clear rights regarding removal.

We need a fast-track route when a house sale is at risk.

We need compulsory ADR or a dedicated ombudsman.

We need compensation where consumers suffer financial loss.

And we need a proper statutory market-exit regime.

Government should also consider whether a renewable asset or service provider of last resort is needed so that safety, maintenance and basic consumer protections continue when a commercial provider fails.

ONE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION

Government wants households to embrace solar power, batteries, heat pumps and other renewable technologies.

But should the individual homeowner really carry the insolvency risk of the commercial structure for ten, twenty or twenty-five years?

I don’t believe they should.

This is not anti-renewable energy.

It is about making renewable energy trustworthy.

The warning signs were there.

The property problems were known.

National Trading Standards warned Government.

The national response it proposed did not materialise.

And now a portfolio of household arrangements may change hands while consumers still do not know what their rights are.

This needs ownership.

This needs oversight.

This needs redress.

And it needs Parliamentary action now.