Mr P had a solar PV system installed in his property in late 2014, however he argued that the quality of his installation was poor, with panels rocking in the wind and damage to his tiles causing leaks from his roof.
Outcome achieved: Repair of roof tiles and improved fixing of panels on the roof.
Comments from Mr P: "... it has taken two years and would not have happened without your intervention thank you so much for your help " (February 2017)
Mr. A had a solar PV system installed at his property in late 2011; however, Mr. A discovered that damage was caused to his roof tiles and water ingress occurred due to the installation of his solar PV system. Mr. A found that instead of the roof tiles being replaced with new ones, they were duct taped together. To avoid further damage to their property, Mr. A had to have his roof repaired immediately. Mr. A was seeking financial compensation for this.
Outcome achieved: Consumer received £2,800 in financial compensation for the cost of repairs to their roof.
Comments from Mr. A: "Many thanks for your help in bringing closure to this dispute." (February 2017)
Ms. H did not receive handover documentation for the installation of a solar PV system.
Outcome achieved: Provision of handover documentation.
Comments from Ms. H: “I have received your email [sic] with the appropriate documents. Thank you for forwarding these to me.” (August 2016)
Mr. D had a solar PV system installed in 2014, but had experiencing a loss in generation. Mr. C discovered that this was due to his system underperforming and he had lost out on FiT payments.
Outcome achieved: £430 in financial compensation for a loss in FiT payments.
Comments from Mr. D: “...only after our intervention did they settle for £430”. (January 2017)
Ms. A paid £150 to have a solar PV suitability survey carried out in 2015 and was advised that if she decided not to proceed with the installation, this fee would be refunded. However, this did not occur and the consumer had been pursuing the refund since November 2015. The company advised on 2nd March 2016 that they had not received her initial complaint correspondence.
Outcome achieved: £150 survey fee refunded.
Comments from Ms. A: “This has already been resolved with your organisations help. The £150 was refunded. Thank you.” (April 2016)
Mr. B tried contacting the installer in December 2015 for over two weeks in order to temporarily remove his solar PV panels from the roof while he had it replaced. Mr. B had to contact a third party, Mr. L, who discovered that the wrong type of brackets and rails were used during fitting and had resulted in damage to the slates on Mr. B’s roof. The consumer asked for financial compensation of £380 to cover the cost of the correct brackets and rails.
Outcome achieved: Compensation of £250.
Comments from Mr. B: “I have received a cheque for the agreed £250 from [the company] and this has now cleared my bank account. (21st January)…I would like to thank you for your help in this matter.” (January 2017)
Mr. A had a solar PV system installed in 2016, but was only eligible for the lower Feed-in-Tariff generation rate because the company did not provide an Energy Performance Certificate rated D or above issued on or before the commissioning date.
Outcome achieved: Financial compensation for the loss of the higher Feed-in-Tariff generation tariff rate.
Comments from Mr. A: “yes, the complaint has been resolved, as I have decided to accept the compensation form [sic] Project Solar UK Ltd for the loss of the higher feed in tariff…Thank you once more for your assistance with the case…” (September 2016)
Mr. Q signed a contract for a solar assisted heat pump and paid a deposit of £3,898.00. After receiving a report from the company, Mr. Q decided that he no longer wished to continue with the contract and cancelled it. The company agreed to return the deposit but failed to do so within the timeframe set. Shortly after registering his complaint with RECC, Mr. Q received a full refund from the company.
Outcome achieved: Refund of £3,898.00
Comments from Mr. Q: “I am impressed by the power of RECC!! I have informed them of the happy outcome”.
Mr. D had a solar PV system installed in 2011. However, it was discovered in 2016 that a handheld monitoring unit priced at £320 was not provided, but paid for. Mr. D had recently changed inverters, so the monitoring unit was incompatible with his current equipment.
Outcome: Refund of £240.
Comments from Mr. D: “I am pleased to inform you that £240 has been deposited into our joint bank account today from [the company.] I would like to thank you most sincerely for facilitating the outcome of this dispute, I could not have achieved this without your assistance…” (December 2016)