Securing the FIT income when moving house

[Ted]

Desp, OK I admit I'm acting devil's advocate on some of this.  But imagine this (and, yes, I'm cherry-picking my arguments again):

Two houses for sale on the same street, identical in all respects apart from the £15k PV just put on the roof of one of them. The first house is on the market for £174,999 (with zero stamp duty). Is any estate agent going to suggest that the owner of the house with PV asks for £189,999 (plus £1900 stamp duty) to recover the investment in the PV? Which house is most likely to sell first?  What does the owner do when everyone who comes to look at the house says: "I do like it, but I think those things on the roof are really ugly. If you get rid of them I'll offer you £175k?" even after you've explained it to them.

What I'm getting at is that I think people are going to have to accept that if they invest in renewables then they might just find themselves in circumstances when they don't get the payback that they think is 'guaranteed'. Just the same as investments in orchards or bathrooms.

P.S. in my previous post when I said 'everyone' I really meant 'everyone who wants to buy your house', a much smaller set.


pb, FITs are different from orchards and bathrooms in that they create a known, contractual payback period for renewables - that's their entire point, to create investment based on this 'certainty' - which the others don't have. But, as above, I can envisage circumstances where this ceases to apply - i.e. when selling your house.

[martin]

I'd concur with Ted's warnings and forebodings, having spent some time in the property business I'd be extremely wary of ever expecting to "get my money's worth" unless I spent the entire time of the scheme in the property. People don't buy houses for the "extras", but for other considerations - the biggies being position, size, whether semi/terraced/detached, garage, catchment area for "good" schools etc.
Many moons ago (as you'll guess from the property price), I was asked to value a mock regency terraced house on the outskirts of Eastbourne, the owner had spent ludicrous quantities of money ill-advisedly on "improvements"..... and the house sported the worst excesses of Poggenpohl kitchen, and Dickeson and French mock-regency bedroom fittings (cost nearly £20k), white ankle-depth shag pile carpet throughout, and the postage stamp rear garden had a floodlit Barbecue area.......... The owner, who reckon she'd spent some £30k on "improvements" naively loaded that on top of the "usual" price for similar properties, and expected to get £80,000 for it - she was most upset when I very gently explained to her that the only way to get the value out of the "improvements" was to stay there for the next 25 years! - (It was worth £50k tops, whatever you'd done to it, it was still an 'orrible jerry-built terraced rabbit hutch the "wrong side of the tracks" with no garage, that most people would want to rip out all of the "improvements" to make habitable..........)
For £80k in those days you could have bought a substantial detached property in a "good" residential area, why spend silly money on an overpriced "tart up"?

[desperate]

Hi Ted and Martin et al

I agree with both your arguements, there will always be a ceiling price for any property dependant on all sorts of factors, and if an investment in a PV system breaks through the ceiling, it would be foolish to expect to recoup that on the price alone. Presumably though anyone investing in PV would take into consideration the possibility of their moving within a few years, ok some people have to move unexpectedly, but we cant keep everyone happy all the time.

As you say Martin, People dont buy houses for the extras, but more for the location, school etc, so if a house has a PV system on the roof, but otherwise the house ticks all the boxes, is it such a deterent?

I think you put it perfectly Ted, people need to accept the fact that if they invest in PV and their situation changes, they may not realise the benefit.........BUT wait a miniute we are making a very capitalist arguement here......what are our motives for sticking all this stuff on the roof in the first place? are we trying to save the Planet or bolster our bank account?

Ok I admit it will be some combination of both motives, but this thread perfectly illustrates how difficult it is to provide an incentive for any scheme without alienating those who cant take up the incentive or make the most of it.

Desperate

[martin]

I think the problem is where altruism and our better selves collide with the cold hard realities of life as personified by the property market.....
A lot of it's down to taste and priorities - what you and I find important is WAY down the list for many people (if the Express is to be believed, a majority of people think man-made global warming is all a plot by lefties) - to us a roof  liberally festooned with solar is a good thing, the thickerati may view it as unsightly, and even the most reasonable may choose to spend that last £10k on getting the detached property down the road, rather than your "solar semi".......

[martin]

-on a more positive note, it is something I had thought about, and reckoned it could quite easily be "got round", but it would mean the application of a modicum of intelligence from the powers-that-be (hence it hasn't a snowballs chance in hell............)
Make pvs "modular", or "sectional", and portable in the event of a move - essentially you buy your pv in say "blocks" of 500 watts, made to be easily erected/taken down in the event of a move, and easily added to (young couple starting off can have one module, then adding to them as income allows). If the mounting system were made "universal" and unobtrusive in the event of the panels being removed, it would get over most of the problems/objections. Then you make the FIT scheme apply to the panels - simple government seal on each - embedded chip or whatever...... job done! Doesn't preclude them "staying on the property" but also allows flexibility
THEN you can buy your panels "for life", and the elderly could then bequeath them to their younger relatives......

[Justme]

Or another take.]

which house would you buy

a, plain old house for £175k, with a dead cirt that the elec bills will go up each year.
or
b, house with pv that has a virtual guarantee (after all it is a gov run scheme so could stop at any time) of £600 per year "cash back" & lower elec bills for life at £185k