´óÏó´«Ã½

Watchdog investigated complaints from viewers who have regrets about getting solar panels installed in their homes. We contacted company A Shade Greener LTD and it told us:

The ASG companies are jointly responsible for giving away 230,000,000 kWh of free green electricity
last year to landlords.
To date we have generated over 2,000,000,000 kilowatt hours of free electricity for use in the
70,000 homes installed.

A Shade Greener Ltd stopped fitting Free Solar panels in 2016 but A Shade Greener Maintenance Ltd
facilitate the maintenance and management of the 70,000 systems. There is a team of dedicated
Customer Service operatives, roofing specialists, electricians, and a full legal department.

The complainants are landlords (under the terms of the leases they entered into), they are not
ASGM’s customers, and we request that you cease referring to them as such as they are acting as
Property Freeholders and as potential landlords and certainly not as Consumers and none of them
have ever been a ‘customer’ of any of the A Shade Greener companies.

The owners of the solar panel systems installed at the complainants’ properties (and indeed other
solar panel owners) have contracted ASGM to provide maintenance and administration services in
respect of the systems they own.

To be clear, ASGM did not install the solar panel systems at the complainants’ properties, they do
not own the solar panel systems at the complainants’ properties, and they are not the tenant under
the terms of the leases that the complainants have entered into.

Temporary removal of the solar panel process/Scaffolding costs
1. Under clause 5.1 of the Lease agreement a landlord can request that the tenant removes the
system twice during the term for a maximum of 3 months each time to enable the landlord to
renovate the roof or extend the premises.
2. ASGM are responsible for the maintenance and administration of over 70,000 system’s and their
associated leases. Some landlords contact ASGM giving very little notice and expect ASGM to be
able to attend to a temporary removal within a matter of days, which is simply not logistically
feasible. The satisfaction of landlords is important to us. We simply cannot cancel existing
appointments to facilitate late and last-minute requests, despite the desperate protestations
that come from a small number of landlords.
3. ASGM has emergency provisions in place to attend properties on the rare occasions that a
landlord may have a serious leak to contend with.
4. In an effort to assist landlords who simply cannot or will not wait for a standard temporary
removal appointment, we have provisions in place to coordinate a supplementary team of
personnel to carry out urgent temporary removals and a contribution towards extra costs,
payable by the landlord, is capped at £1000.00. As ASGM has to instruct additional contractors in
these circumstances, the £1000.00 pays directly towards the expedited service that the landlord
receives and ASGM does not benefit financially, or otherwise, providing this additional option.
Furthermore, there are absolutely no requirements within the lease agreements for us, or the
tenants, to facilitate such an additional option, likewise there are no provisions or stipulations
within the lease agreements regarding timescales in which a temporary removal must take place
upon a landlord’s request. Neither were there any promises for a faster service given, intimated
or promised when the lease was discussed with the potential landlord prior to installation.
5. In regard to scaffolding, nowhere in the leases does it state that scaffolding will be provided for
a temporary removal, it simply states that the tenant will remove and re-install the system. As
clause 5.1 is exercisable only if a customer is going to renovate or extend the premises, then
scaffolding would already be erected by the Landlord prior to works commencing.
6. We have however experienced a very small number of complaints from landlords whereby they
surprisingly expected ASGM to fund scaffolding, not only for the temporary removal, but for the
duration of their own roof works and to be used by their contractors. When a landlord
undertakes renovation works to their roof, they would be required by HSE to erect full
scaffolding and would have to pay for the scaffolding regardless of whether they have solar
panels or not.
7. For the avoidance of doubt ASGM does not own any scaffolding or any scaffolding company nor
have any affiliations with any scaffolding company or benefit from any scaffolding company we
request work from.
8. ASGM have successfully assisted hundreds of landlords with free temporary removals without
complaint.

Bird Guards
9. The nesting of pigeons on the roof of the property is a situation entirely out of our control and
therefore not something that would fall under our ‘maintenance’ obligations as stipulated within
the lease.
10. We have already taken advice from a leading set of barristers’ chambers on this specific issue. In
doing so, we forwarded to Counsel a copy of the standard lease we administer, being in a format
identical to that entered into by your complainants.
Having considered that lease, on the issue of whether we are obliged by the lease to install
bird guards the barrister provided us with a very clear statement which we set out below:
“….. it is my view that the [Tenant] can say to its customers with confidence that there is
nothing in the lease that obliges it to fit pigeon guards to their homes where problems
develop.”
11. We can clarify that two customers have previously chosen to pursue the matter of obtaining free
bird guards through the courts, the basis of their claims being that they believed that either
ASGM or the tenant should provide bird guards at no cost to them. Both cases ruled in ASGM
and the tenant’s favour. The Judgement in both cases confirmed that neither ASGM or the
tenant is liable under the terms of the lease to install bird guards free of charge, or at cost. It was
further considered that neither ASGM nor the tenant have liability under any other area of law
or through any regulations that exist.
12. The responsibility of installing any bird proofing lies solely with the landlord. This common
practice is regularly enforced by the English Courts that a landlord is responsible to rectify any
matter of pests or vermin in a rented property.
13. In instances where a landlord asks us to fit bird guards, it is an additional service (to the
obligations in the leases) that we can sometimes offer. Unfortunately, a small amount of
landlords believe this service should just be tantamount to the cost of netting to put around the
solar panel system. In reality we are obliged to adhere to the relevant Health and Safety
guidelines at all times, therefore, scaffolding would be required in the first instance with the
average basic scaffolding quote we receive being around £700.00 (this price can drastically
increase if a property has extra scaffolding requirements). In addition to scaffolding the actual
bird guard materials are required to be purchased and on top of that the costs in relation to
labour and travel etc. it is therefore clear to see, from the information provided above, why the
quotes we provide are the amounts they are with ultimately no financial gain for ASGM.
14. To reiterate, the leases that the complainants have entered into make no reference to bird
guards, whether as part of the equipment (as defined in the lease) or otherwise. What you can
expect from any business is for them to provide what has been agreed between the parties to
the original lease or contract, and it was not agreed nor stated in the terms and conditions of the
lease that if this unlikely problem were to occur, that bird guards would be fitted free of charge
or at cost.

As previously stated this particular complaint regarding pigeons has been aired with most of the
regulatory bodies concerned with solar panels who have all agreed with the Courts that it is the
landlords responsibility to protect the property from pests and vermin furthermore there was no
regulatory requirement to fit pigeon guards at the time of installation of these 70,000 systems.
We comment as follows on your ‘case studies’:

Case Study 1
Name: Lesley Hammond
a. The landlord contacted ASGM on the 4th February 2022 in regard to a temporary removal. A
letter was sent to the landlord on the same day outlining ASGM’s procedures and requesting the
relevant information required for us to action a temporary removal.
b. As no response was received to the letter above, we sent a follow up letter on 18th February
2022.
c. On 29th December 2022 the request was closed as we had received no further correspondence
from the homeowner with regards to his supposedly urgent temporary removal of his solar
panel system.
d. Surprisingly, a new temporary removal requested from the landlord was received by ASGM on
the 11th October 2023 and they were offered a date for an appointment.
e. On 18th October 2023 the landlord enquired as to the cost of an expedited service, and they
were duly informed the contribution to costs would be £1000.00.
f. On 19th October 2023 the landlord enquired about bird guards, ASGM offered to provide the
service, at a reduced rate, during the solar panel refit appointment.
g. The landlord chose to pay the £1000.00 contribution towards the expedited temporary removal
service and the removal took place on 7th November 2023.
h. Upon completion of the landlord’s roof works the solar panels were reinstalled and bird guards
were fitted at the agreed reduced cost.
i. The landlord completed a ‘homeowner satisfaction notice’ which ASGM uses to constantly
review and monitor our services to ensure landlords receive an excellent service.
j. The landlord gave ASGM an Excellent 5 STAR rating. No complaints were received.
k. Please note, at no time during the above correspondence did the landlord stipulate that they
had a leak or that there were any issues with the electrics. The paperwork the landlord
completed stated simply that they were having a new roof.
l. We note the landlord states he still has to pay for energy costs, and any potential savings due to
the solar panels are very unclear to him. Landlords benefit from the use of the free electricity
that the panels generate during daylight hours. The appliances in the home will always use the
electricity generated by the panels first (if available) and then if usage in the home exceeds the
supply of the panels the supply is topped up from the grid, so this causes a clear reduction in the
electric bill as they are not using as much electricity from the grid. Depending on how well a
customer utilises the free electricity available depends on how much money they can save off
their electric bill. If the landlord wants further information as to how the system works and how
to maximise the benefits, then they can contact us directly for assistance.

All landlords have a specific website login code to have instant access to the energy generated from
their system. This allows them to see on a daily basis how much energy they could save and how
much free electricity they could use.

In the case of Mr Hammond, he has had access to 27,611 kWhs since installation at today’s value of 32p. The installation is worth around £900 a year to Mr Hammond if properly used.
As you can see from the above that they do not correlate at all with his previous actions of happily paying the contribution to an early removal and refit and after the operation was completed giving ASGM a five star review and signing a complete satisfaction notice.

Case Study 2
Name: Mark Rooke
a. On 22nd July 2020 the landlord made an enquiry regarding bird guards. ASGM provided a
quotation and also stipulated he could instruct a suitable third party to attend to the matter if he
wished.
b. On 25th October 2023 our monitoring procedures highlighted that we were no longer receiving
readings from the system at the landlord’s property, therefore, communication was sent to the
landlord about this matter.
c. On 16th November 2023 the landlord informed ASGM that he had illegally instructed a third
party to remove the solar panels and that he now required a refit. The landlord was informed
that prior to a refit we would require information regarding access, the roof works that had been
carried out and that we would also need to test and inspect the solar panels prior to the refit
due to the fact that an unauthorised third party removed them.
d. The landlord advised ASGM they could collect the panels for testing on the 22nd December 2023.
e. On 29th December site photos and a schedule of equipment were received from the landlord.
f. As the system was illegally removed and the temporary removal process disregarded by the
landlord, ASGM advised him that we would require him to erect scaffolding at the property to
facilitate the refit. If the landlord had followed the correct procedures the scaffolding he had
erected for the roof works could have been used to refit the panels.
g. To date, the landlord is refusing to pay for scaffolding, despite ASGM attempting to reason with
him by offering to install free bird guards and to waive the losses the tenant has suffered due to
his illegal actions.

Fundamentally, Mr Rooke did not request a temporary removal from ASGM, expedited or otherwise
but did pay for the system to be removed by an unauthorised 3rd party company and paid for
scaffolding to facilitate this. Mr Rooke did not inform ASGM of the removal, this only came to light
when remote communication stopped, and he only requested a refit of the panels when his
scaffolding had been removed. If he had contacted ASGM to request their removal and informed us
that he had a leak the matter would not have escalated to the unfortunate situation it is now.
Mr Rooke has breached the terms of the lease, and he remains in breach of the lease. If he
continually fails to cooperate in the matter, then the tenant will justifiably instruct legal action
against him to recover all existing and future losses, including the loss of Feed in Tariff payments for
the duration of the lease.

The landlord has had access to 20,640 KWH since installation at today’s value of 32p. The
installation is worth around £900 a year to Mr Rooke if properly used.

For the couple of complaints, you are considering giving airtime to, we could provide simply over a
thousand reviews and comments from customers that are extremely happy with the service they
receive from ASGM and therefore your comments are absolutely unrepresentative of the landlords
we deal with collectively.

We have 70,000 installations where at least 200,000 people will be living in those properties and
benefitting from free electricity and are extremely grateful as our Trustpilot satisfaction scores clearly indicate where to date we have 1,144 five STAR reviews for the service provided by A Shade greener Maintenance Ltd. Even if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ were to ever receive 2000 complaints from people using our electricity this would still be less than 1% of the people we help every day to enjoy free electricity in their homes.

We followed up with questions around the contract issue highlighted in the film to which A Shade Greener responded:

We have reviewed all of the correspondence and notes in Mr Hammonds file and can reiterate that
Mr Hammond first approached ASGM on 4th February 2022 to request a temporary removal and this
was followed up by the roofing team when no response was received. Mr Hammond did not make
any reference to a leak at this time.

When Mr Hammond contacted ASGM again on 11th October 2023 he was informed by our telephone
operative that the temporary removal appointments were booking into 2024 and this did not cause
Mr Hammond any concern during the telephone call. The paperwork was sent out the same day and
returned to us on 18th October with the completed form giving the reason for the removal as “a New
Roof & Chimney removal and foul pipe re route”.

On closer inspection of the paperwork, within the latter additional information section, Mr
Hammond asked for works to be carried out as soon as possible due to a water ingress problem
experienced by many homes on his estate. Unfortunately, as this wasn’t the main reason given for
the temporary removal and not mentioned at all by Mr Hammond in his various telephone calls with
the roofing team, this issue was missed and Mr Hammond’s request for the expedited service was
treated in the usual way. It was carried out promptly and efficiently and Mr Hammond was very
pleased with the service he received.

As previously explained, as part of our processes to constantly review and monitor our services our
roofing team telephoned Mr Hammond to ensure he had received an excellent service. Our
‘homeowner satisfaction notice’ was completed and is attached for your attention clearly showing
his high regard and total satisfaction for the service given.

With regards to your questions raised:
The Lease agreement in place allows for the removal of the system twice during the term and there
are no timescales in place stipulated for the removal. With around 70,000 Landlords to assist, our
calendars get booked up quickly and we are unable to cancel any existing customer appointments.
We are not obligated to offer an expedited service and it is not contractual, it is a solution that has
evolved over time from the feedback received by Landlords and offered to those who wish to use it.
Since 2016 we have carried out 1929 temporary removals, with 44 of these being an expedited
service at the request of the Landlord, this is around 2%. As these numbers were quite low and in
order to offer additional support to the Landlords, in November 2023 we reviewed our procedure
for Temporary Removals. This was revised in an effort to reduce time delays for homeowners who
were experiencing water ingress problems and was changed to provide all expedited services
without cost to Landlords where this was reported.

We hope you can see from our detailed, open and transparent response that we are an honest
ethical business providing a service which is more important than ever; and these complaints are
disingenuous at the very least and clearly motivated by some other undisclosed reason.