Rent-a-Roof sounded like a win-win. A free solar panel system on your roof, no upfront costs, and cheaper bills for decades. The sun would do the work. The installer would get the feed-in tariff with an approximate rate of return of 5-8%, according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). You’d get a lower electric bill.
For many households between 2010 and 2016, Rent-a-Roof schemes felt like the future arriving early. Then things changed.
Government incentives shifted. Tariffs dropped. Some firms vanished. Others sold their portfolios. Homeowners who once saw sunshine as savings found themselves facing tangled paperwork, sale delays, or rooftop systems they didn’t fully own. Questions piled up about maintenance, ownership, and what it meant when “free” didn’t quite mean yours.
So, what happened to Rent-a-Roof? And what does it mean today, for the thousands of UK homes still living with the long shadow of an old solar deal?
Quick Takeaways on What Happened to Rent-a-Roof:
- Rent-a-roof involved companies installing solar panels on homes for free in exchange for keeping the feed-in tariff payments
- Homeowners got free solar panels and lower energy bills without any upfront cost
- When government feed-in tariffs were slashed, firms folded, and ownership of systems became unclear.
- Selling homes with these panels became more complicated, and legal ownership of panels can still cause delays in property sales.
- These deals are mostly no longer offered, but if you’re buying a house with panels, it’s essential to check the fine print.
What Was Rent‑a‑Roof?
In 2010, the UK government launched a generous Feed-in Tariff (FiT). That scheme paid high rates to anyone generating renewable electricity, especially solar users. Companies seized this opportunity with the uptake of solar increasing rapidly.
Government data shows that 674,218 solar PV installations were made between April 2010 and March 2015, representing a 99% share of FIT installations.
They offered homeowners free installation of solar panels in exchange for a long-term lease on their roof space, typically 20–25 years. Installers recovered costs and earned profits by selling surplus electricity to the grid, taking both generation and export payments under the FiT or SEG schemes.
For homeowners, the appeal was straightforward: no upfront cost and cheaper electricity, albeit without receiving FiT earnings. These leases often included clauses restricting home changes and required company approval for everything from renovations to home sales.
Rent-a-Roof Early Promise: Why It Seemed Like a Good Idea
For many homeowners, Rent-a-Roof offered access to solar technology they otherwise couldn’t afford. Systems that might have cost £15,000 in the early 2010s came at zero cost.
Reduced energy bills became a benefit. Companies handled installation, maintenance, and insurance. In theory, a win-win: homeowners gained solar electricity; installers earned FiT and SEG payments. Green credentials were built in, and environmentally-minded households felt part of the movement.
However, there was a key complication: homeowners didn’t own the panels, and FiT/export income went entirely to the installer, not the roof owner. That shift undercut FiT’s purpose: to reward individuals for going green. Over time, the imbalance became more obvious.
Rent-a-Roof Downside Revealed: Contracts, Control, and Consequences
Problems began to surface quickly and often painfully.
No Income
No ownership meant no FiT income. Many homeowners learned they would not receive government payments that were funding the panel profits. Installers kept all incentives.
Restricted Home Use
Contracts frequently blocked structural alterations like extensions, loft conversions, and even roof repairs without the installer’s consent. Some agreements required approval before a home sale; some penalised owners for any unauthorized changes.
Sales and Mortgage Challenges
Properties under Rent-a-Roof were hard to sell and to mortgage. Mortgage lenders like Skipton and Nationwide often refused lending because the lease over the roof space represented a long-term encumbrance. Many surveyed buyers deemed such homes difficult to finance or resell.
Exit Barriers
Some contracts lacked buy-out clauses, locking homeowners into leases. Terminations could involve thousands of pounds, increasing over time due to index-linked penalties.
What Went Wrong in Practice: Real Cases
Delayed Installations and Cancellations
In 2012, Energy Saving Group (ESG), a provider, cancelled around 700 solar systems after taking £500 deposits from customers, citing changing eligibility rules. Reports show that many who lost money with ESG were pensioners and had waited months with no installation, and refunds were slow or incomplete.
Affordability Illusion
Homes that appeared solar-equipped were under solar panels, but devoid of benefits. FiT revenue went elsewhere, and owners had little control. Mortgage lenders often blocked remortgages or sales.
Resale Nightmare
A renters’ case: a couple handed over their roof in return for panels, but years later, a buyer backed out because they couldn’t obtain a mortgage. According to The Guardian, the buyer failed to get approval for the mortgage application due to the lease agreement, where a large part of the roof had been signed over to the solar company.
The contract forbade the removal of panels, and lenders refused to take over the obligation. The 25-year leases apply to the property regardless of who owns it, and they have to find a buyer willing to take on the remaining years.
Even if a buyer is willing, mortgage lenders may not be. The deal is treated as a leasehold, and building societies and banks deem contracts skewed in favour of the company as risky.
Declining Scheme Value
By the late 2010s, FiT rates dropped and solar panel costs declined. Government reports note that the pace of change in the Solar PV market exposed the limitations of the FiT scheme in its original form. A quarterly degression was introduced to reduce returns, in some cases from double to single digits.
Rent-a-Roof models lost profitability. Many providers exited, while homeowners were still locked into outdated leases.
Rent-a-Roof Legacy Issues and What Came After
Many Rent-a-Roof users found themselves tied to 25-year contracts that discouraged roof repairs or mortgage changes. Buy-out fees often increased over time, making early exit costly.
Lenders flagged these schemes as problematic: RICS and mortgage industry guidance warned they could harm mortgageability and property value. Some buyers had house purchase offers withdrawn once lenders discovered the lease.
Once FiT ended in 2019, installers had little incentive to continue. Most providers stopped new agreements. Some delinquent companies disappeared in what homeowners described as phoenixing, and key Leasing obligations vanished.
Meanwhile, solar panel prices dropped: today, DIY or financed solar makes more financial sense. Regulations around leases improved, buyer awareness increased, and firms offering panel leases are now more transparent, though very few remain.
Why the Model Unravelled
Several factors matched to undermine Rent-a-Roof:
- FiT dependency: The scheme thrived under generous Feed-in Tariffs. Once rates dropped and closed, its economics collapsed.
- Consumer backlash: As restrictions and no FiT payments became clear, consumer sentiment turned negative.
- Regulatory gaps: Many contracts lacked transparency and formal oversight, and homeowners had few legal protections.
- Mortgage market reaction: Lenders increasingly withheld finance for properties with solar leases, fearing valuation and repossession issues.
- Market evolution: Solar became cheaper, simpler to self-fund or finance, making Rent-a-Roof unnecessary.
Many firms disappeared, went out of business, and faded into the background as the model lost traction.
Lessons Learned from Rent-a-Roof
For future homeowners and those affected by Rent-a-Roof:
- Read contracts carefully. Are there restrictions? Is there a buy‑out clause? What costs escalate?
- Check mortgage implications. Ask your lender if solar leases affect borrowing.
- Consider upfront ownership. Buying your panels yields FiT (if eligible), smarter value, and complete control.
- Seek independent solar quotes. Even if panels cost upfront, modern systems often pay back in under 10 years.
- Watch for phoenixing. If your provider disappears, reading about insolvency and legal options early is wise.
- Know your rights. Consumer protections exist, and some redress tools (ombudsman, CMA) may apply.
In short, leasing your roof wasn’t illegal, but it was frequently poor value once initial enthusiasm faded.
What Remains of Rent-a-Roof: The View from 2025
Today, Rent-a-Roof is essentially a relic. Very few companies still offer such agreements. The golden FiT era is over. Most homeowners looking for solar buy or finance panels independently, and modern leasing models (if offered) come with more precise terms, shorter durations, and options to purchase the system.
Homeowners with legacy Rent-a-Roof panels should review their contracts. Some might still generate bimonthly electricity, though no income, only bill savings. Others may want to negotiate buy-out terms, but beware of steep price formulas tied to RPI and years of installation that may climb over time.
For those looking to resell, full disclosure is vital, especially when a lease covers roof space. Potential buyers should understand the obligations. Mortgage lenders still evaluate these schemes stringently.
Summary of What Happened to Rent-a-Roof
Rent-a-Roof rose on a wave of FiT generosity and homeowner interest in solar with no cost. However, it stumbled in several ways: homeowners lost control of their roof space, profits went elsewhere, contracts were binding, and resale became hard.
The FiT incentive disappeared. Contracts extended out of step with changing market expectations. Buyers and lenders became wary. Most companies moved on or folded. Now, solar is cheaper, more accessible, and typically owned rather than leased.
While some people still benefit from electricity savings under older rentals, the scheme remains a cautionary tale about complexity, unintended consequences, and the importance of reading the fine print before leasing your roof.
FAQs on Rent-a-Roof
What Is the Rent-A-Roof Solar Panel Scheme?
A model launched around 2010, where companies install solar panels free of charge on homeowners’ roofs. The installer retains ownership and earns from government incentives (Feed-in Tariffs and SEG), while the homeowner benefits from reduced electricity bills.
How Does Rent-A-Roof Work Financially?
Homeowners agree to a long-term lease (typically 20–25 years). Panels are installed and maintained at no cost. Any surplus energy is sold to the grid by the installer under Feed-in Tariffs or the Smart Export Guarantee.
What Happens If You Buy A House With Rent-A-Roof Panels?
Houses with Rent-a-Roof panels may face mortgage challenges. Contracts are tied to the property, so buyers must accept the lease or resolve it.
Are Rent-A-Roof Deals Still Available Now?
They are increasingly rare. Since Feed-in Tariffs closed to new applications in 2019 and solar panel costs have dropped, most installers now favour finance-based options or homeowner-owned systems.
Can Rent-A-Roof Be Bought Out Or Terminated Early?
Contracts vary. Many leases lack exit clauses, making buy-out costly or unavailable. Early exits may involve large fees, sometimes indexed to inflation or years elapsed
Sources and References:
- Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) – Feed-in Tariffs
- UK.GOV – Performance and Impact of the Feed-in Tariff Scheme: Review of Evidence
- This is Money – Homeowners furious over solar panels rip-off after company goes out of business
- The Guardian – Homeowners trapped by 25-year solar panel contracts