A leaflet from Lewisham council was the incentive Wendy Lewis needed to take the green plunge. It offered residents the chance to buy solar panels more affordably through a collective scheme, Solar Together.
Installers, they were promised, were rigorously vetted by Solar Together, removing the need to shop around for quotes. Across London, councils have been offering householders the same opportunity, backed by London mayor Sadiq Khan. Local authorities in other regions have also signed up.
Lewis applied for panels and battery storage in March last year and was offered a contract with Green Energy Together (GET), claiming to be one of the country’s largest installers.
She paid the £2,000 deposit in November, but four months and three failed installation dates later, she is yet to receive her panels or her requested refund. So, reportedly, are scores of other customers who were matched to GET.
Complainants report repeated missed appointments and incommunicado customer services. Those who do eventually get their panels may find themselves unable to earn an income from selling the electricity they generate.
Last month, GET was suspended from the green energy certification scheme, MCS, which upholds service standards, pending an investigation. Without an MCS certificate, householders are unlikely to qualify for the smart energy guarantee tariff (SEG) which is paid by suppliers for each unit of excess electricity.
GET, which still displays the MCS logo, is also having its membership reviewed by the deposit protection scheme, HIES, which insures payments, and provides an alternative dispute resolution.
Lewis has been told by HIES that her deposit was not registered with the scheme and is therefore unprotected if GET fails to deliver. Nor would a completed installation qualify for the HIES 10-year guarantee
Lewis says that it took three months and three attempts for GET to issue an accurate contract after it surveyed her property last July. “I finally paid the deposit in November and had to chase repeatedly for payment confirmation and an installation date,” she says. “Work was due to start in February, but the installers failed to turn up on three successive occasions.
“I found that their MCS certification had been suspended and was dismayed to discover that Solar Together was already aware, and had done nothing to inform or protect customers. I’d trusted the company because it was endorsed by the council and I feel I have been massively failed by the scheme.”
GET says that its suspension from MCS was automatically triggered because it missed a deadline to return a questionnaire. It also says it was not obliged to remove the logo because of an “important difference between suspension and removal” and is not obliged to return customer deposits since it would be reinstated in “a couple of days”. It insists that all deposits are registered with HIES, but that it would return Lewis’s payment if she wished to cancel.
“A nationwide shortage of raw materials has delayed installations,” it says. “Much was out of our control, but we now have stock levels to support all bookings in a timely manner.
“Covid also had a devastating impact, and the knock-on effect meant customer service simply wasn’t as good as it should have been. We’re truly sorry, and we’ve worked hard, along with our third-party partners, to make improvements.”
Lewis’s predicament raises questions about the reliability of Solar Together, launched by Sadiq Khan’s Greater London Authority (GLA) in 2018. The scheme simultaneously addresses the two biggest hurdles facing eco-conscious homeowners – how to find a reliable supplier, and how to meet the cost, which ordinarily averages £7,000.
Customers register through participating local authorities, and Solar Together auctions a collective contract to the lowest bidder. Customers are then offered an individual contract with the winning firm.
It sounds a failsafe way to cut carbon emissions and long-term energy costs, and has delivered more than 14,500 installations in four years, so what has suddenly gone so wrong?
The mistake, according to critics, was for the GLA to outsource the management of the scheme to private company iChoosr, which promises that the companies it contracts have been vetted to ensure high standards and “peace of mind”. Other contractors have delivered. GET, however, appears to have been overwhelmed by the volume of work it has repeatedly won at auction.
The warning signs were already obvious before Solar Together awarded GET the contract for Lewis and scores of other customers last June. It was the only winning bidder for contracts in London in 2021 and, despite 385 complaints to the GLA about poor service, it was chosen again by iChoosr last year, along with two other suppliers.
GET’s founding directors, father and son David and Nick Elbourne, were behind energy supplier and solar panel installer Solarplicity, which went bust in 2019. It had been banned from taking on new customers for three months by the energy regulator, Ofgem, following record complaints and unpaid bills.
GET’s company accounts from 2021 show that only £100 was paid into the company as credit capital, while it owed creditors £1.7m.
Last March, the Financial Conduct Authority refused GET’s application to provide consumer credit, and questioned whether it had appropriate human resources and “integrity” after the firm failed to respond to seven requests for information.
Soon afterwards, review website Trustpilot terminated GET’s subscription after it failed to address fake four- and five-star reviews from accounts linked to the company, though GET strongly denies misuse. It says Trustpilot has not explained its reasoning, or engaged with it despite numerous attempts at contact.
Siân Berry, Green party member of the London Assembly, has since last July been asking Sadiq Khan’s office to explain why GET remains a contractor of Solar Together, despite more than 400 complaints to the GLA. “GET has shown staggering levels of ineptitude and the mayor has been slow to take responsibility for the fact that so many customers have been let down by a scheme in his name,” she says.
The mayor’s office admitted that GET had “badly failed” customers, but insisted it was iChoosr’s responsibility to resolve complaints. It says: “The mayor has instructed GLA officials to investigate all options available, including legal ones, to protect the rights of Londoners and reduce their exposure to Green Energy Together.”
Meanwhile, iChoosr says: “GET UK has confirmed it has paused all Solar Together installations while it is unable to issue MCS certificates, and we are aware that it is in discussions with its accreditation bodies to remedy its position.” It also claims most Solar Together customers are satisfied with their installations.
Lewis says she was not informed by GET or Solar Together that the MCS certification had been suspended or that installations had been paused. MCS told the Observer it had asked GET to remove its logo from its website. GET insists this is not required as it expects its certification to be imminently reinstated.
Stoke-on-Trent residents to sue council over ‘mis-sold’ solar power contractsRead more
Ben Howe, MCS compliance and enforcement manager, says: “The ramifications are significant. While some suppliers may grant SEG payments without an MCS compliance certificate, others will not. Without one, consumers could be left disadvantaged, with no recourse.”
Lewisham council told the Observer it was “not party to the appointment or management of the installer”.
With every organisation passing the buck, customers are in a limbo since the Energy Ombudsman and Local Government Ombudsman remits do not cover the scheme.
Those who paid by credit card can make a claim under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act if their contract is not fulfilled. Debit card payments may be protected by the voluntary chargeback scheme.
According to consumer lawyer Gary Rycroft, customers could have a legal case against iChoosr if GET fails to deliver. “There is an implied contract with iChoosr, if not a written one, since it introduced customers to a service not as described,” he says.
This article was amended on 14 March 2023 because an earlier version mistakenly referred to the energy regulator as Ofcom, whereas it is Ofgem.
