Over the last few months I have been trying to answer what should be a fairly simple question.
What actually happens to the consumer when a company behind a long-term domestic solar or battery arrangement fails?
Who owns the equipment?
Who maintains it?
Who can demand money from the homeowner?
What happens if the homeowner wants to sell or remortgage?
What happens if the original contract cannot be found?
What happens if rights are sold to another company?
And most importantly of all:
Who is actually responsible for protecting the consumer?
The more information I have obtained, the clearer one thing has become.
There is no simple answer.
What I have found instead is a fragmented system, spread across different regulators, government departments, insolvency rules, consumer law, property law and contractual arrangements.
And the worrying part is that many of these problems are not new.
THE WARNING SIGNS WERE THERE YEARS AGO
Two separate internal reviews by the Department for Business and Trade have now overturned earlier “information not held” responses.
Fresh searches identified historic Citizens Advice material concerning solar-panel mis-selling by Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd (HELMS).
That material records problems going back to 2016.
Citizens Advice described becoming aware of the issue in November 2016 after attending a community meeting involving around 40 affected people.
The material says Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd had targeted residential areas with solar-panel and other energy-efficiency offers.
It records concerns including:
• homeowners not owning the feed-in tariff income;
• consumers continuing to pay Green Deal charges;
• alleged misrepresentation at the point of sale;
• rising energy bills;
• building-warrant problems;
• and Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd later entering liquidation.
The material also shows how fragmented the redress system was even then.
Citizens Advice helped affected consumers complain to the Green Deal Finance Company and the Financial Ombudsman.
It recorded that the Green Deal Ombudsman would not take the complaints.
MPs became involved.
There was political action in Westminster and Holyrood.
Local authorities had to deal with building standards issues.
Legal advice was sought on the status of feed-in tariff contracts.
In other words, many of the issues we are now seeing again were already visible years ago.
The central themes are strikingly familiar:
ownership problems,
consumer misunderstanding,
long-term financial obligations,
provider failure,
difficulty obtaining redress,
and uncertainty over who is responsible.
THE PROBLEMS HAVE NOT DISAPPEARED
Fast forward to 2026.
Tomato Energy and related businesses have collapsed.
Senapt Limited and Senapt Assets Limited entered administration.
Consumers are now trying to understand what rights and obligations survive, who owns installed equipment, whether contracts can be transferred, and what happens where the original documentation is disputed or missing.
The latest Senapt Assets administrator’s progress report is particularly important.
It confirms that an interested party had been identified to acquire the customer contracts and tangible assets.
At the time covered by the report, that interested party was still carrying out due diligence.
That means the wider household portfolio had not yet completed a sale during the reporting period.
The same report also says some customers had approached the administrators directly to buy the equipment attached to their own homes.
The administrators had already realised money from those direct purchases.
They also specifically invited other customers who might wish to acquire the “chattel assets” at their properties to contact them rather than have their contracts and assets transferred as part of the wider business sale.
That raises a very obvious question.
If consumers can buy their own equipment directly, what exactly is the proposed purchaser buying?
Is it:
• the physical solar panels and batteries;
• customer contracts;
• payment rights;
• termination rights;
• future income streams;
• monitoring rights;
• maintenance obligations;
• warranties;
• or some combination of these?
And if valuable rights are transferred, are the corresponding obligations transferred too?
That is still not clear.
THE REGULATORY GAP IS BECOMING HARDER TO IGNORE
I have now tested this with several different public bodies.
The answers are revealing.
The Competition and Markets Authority has confirmed that it does not hold bespoke final internal policy or legal analysis dealing specifically with the sort of long-term renewable-energy exit, buyout and successor-transfer problems I asked about.
It does point to general consumer-law protections around unfair contract terms, transparency, disproportionate termination charges and transfer of responsibilities.
But there is no bespoke framework for this exact problem.
The CMA also identifies the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero as the lead department for Government policy in the sector.
The Insolvency Service has also confirmed that it does not hold the specific policy or guidance I asked for on matters including:
• connected-party purchasers;
• successor or phoenix-type businesses;
• purchaser financial resilience;
• operational capability;
• due diligence on customer contracts;
• transfer of long-term obligations;
• and intervention where consumer detriment is a concern.
That matters.
It means the insolvency system itself does not appear to have a bespoke consumer-protection framework for this category of domestic renewable portfolio sale.
Ofgem has also produced a significant response.
It has confirmed that one withheld document concerning domestic solar arrangements was created in the context of an ongoing compliance investigation and potential enforcement action.
Ofgem says disclosure would prejudice the scope, direction and assessment of that regulatory activity.
That means the issues are not merely theoretical.
There has been active regulatory consideration of compliance and enforcement.
I have now referred Ofgem’s refusal to disclose the document in full to the Information Commissioner.
The ICO complaint is live.
OTHER ICO CASES ARE ALSO NOW OPEN
There are also separate ICO complaints involving HMRC and Companies House which have been accepted as eligible for investigation.
That does not mean the ICO has ruled in my favour.
It does mean the complaints have passed the initial eligibility stage and will be investigated when allocated.
The wider picture is now difficult to ignore.
There is historic evidence of serious solar-related consumer problems.
There are current administration and portfolio-transfer issues.
There are live regulatory questions.
There are gaps in bespoke guidance.
And different public bodies continue to point towards different parts of the system.
SO WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE PROBLEM?
That is the question I keep coming back to.
If a homeowner is trapped in a long-term arrangement with equipment attached to their home and the original provider fails, who is actually responsible?
Is it Ofgem?
The Insolvency Service?
The CMA?
Trading Standards?
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero?
The Department for Business and Trade?
The courts?
An ombudsman?
The insolvency practitioner?
The purchaser of the portfolio?
Or the consumer themselves?
At the moment, the answer appears to depend on which part of the problem you are asking about.
That is not good enough.
A consumer should not need to understand the boundary between insolvency law, energy regulation, consumer law, property law and contractual assignment just to work out who they can turn to.
PROPERTY SALES MAKE THIS URGENT
This is not just a technical regulatory debate.
People have homes tied up in these arrangements.
That means the consequences are real.
A homeowner may need to sell.
A mortgage lender may refuse to proceed.
A buyer’s solicitor may ask who owns the equipment.
A contract may be missing.
A lease may not have been registered.
A termination or buyout payment may be demanded.
The original provider may no longer exist.
The administrator may be trying to realise value for creditors.
And the consumer may be caught in the middle.
A property transaction cannot wait six months while regulators decide whose problem it is.
There needs to be a fast, clear route to resolution.
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE
In my view, Government now needs to do three things.
First, it needs to identify one clear lead body with responsibility for consumer protection when long-term domestic renewable arrangements fail.
Second, it needs to create a proper statutory market-exit framework.
That framework should cover:
• ownership of equipment;
• transfer of contracts;
• validation of individual agreements;
• maintenance;
• warranties;
• monitoring;
• safety;
• insurance;
• property sales;
• buyout and exit rights;
• removal;
• data protection;
• redress;
• and what happens if the successor company later fails.
Third, there needs to be a clear rule that consumer obligations cannot simply survive while the benefits that formed part of the original bargain disappear.
If a purchaser acquires the valuable rights, it should also be clear what obligations come with them.
THE NEXT PHASE – WAVE 9
I am now beginning the next phase of this work.
I am calling it Wave 9.
The focus will be much more forensic.
I want to establish:
• who the proposed purchaser is;
• who ultimately owns the Senapt Assets portfolio;
• whether any purchaser is connected with former directors, shareholders or management;
• what exactly is being transferred;
• whether individual contracts are being checked;
• whether disputed or missing agreements are being identified;
• whether customer data is being transferred;
• who is taking on maintenance and warranty obligations;
• how exit and buyout charges are being calculated;
• and what power any regulator has to intervene before the transaction completes.
I will also be writing again to my MP, Michael Payne, because I believe this now requires Parliamentary and ministerial scrutiny.
This is not an argument against solar power, battery storage or cleaner energy.
Quite the opposite.
If Government wants people to trust these technologies, it has to make sure consumers are not left carrying the risk when the commercial model behind them collapses.
The warning signs were there years ago.
The problems are still here.
The difference now is that we have much more evidence.
And the question is becoming harder to avoid:
When a solar provider fails, who protects the homeowner?
DISCLAIMER
This article is based on official Freedom of Information responses, internal review decisions, Companies House filings, administrator reports and other documentary evidence.
Where allegations or concerns are referred to, they are presented as allegations or recorded concerns unless formally established otherwise.
Nothing in this article should be taken as an allegation of criminal conduct or wrongdoing by any individual or company unless expressly stated as an established finding by a competent authority.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lee Odams is a Nottinghamshire-based bus driver, trade union representative and campaigner who has used Freedom of Information legislation extensively to investigate consumer, transport, public-policy and accountability issues.
He has been researching the regulatory and consumer-protection issues surrounding long-term domestic solar and battery arrangements following provider failure.
TAGS
Solar Panels, Solar Energy, Battery Storage, Tomato Energy, Tomatopia, Senapt, Senapt Assets, Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd, HELMS, Green Deal, Ofgem, CMA, Insolvency Service, DESNZ, DBT, Companies House, ICO, Consumer Protection, Insolvency, Renewable Energy, Property Rights, Buyout Charges, Exit Fees, Solar Leases, Solar Contracts, Energy Regulation, Consumer Rights, Freedom of Information, FOI, Regulatory Gaps, Homeowners, Property Sales, Remortgage, Renewable Energy Policy
Source: https://leeodams.blogspot.com/2026/09/years-of-warnings-no-clear-safety-net.html
Auto-imported from Lee Odam's blog.
What actually happens to the consumer when a company behind a long-term domestic solar or battery arrangement fails?
Who owns the equipment?
Who maintains it?
Who can demand money from the homeowner?
What happens if the homeowner wants to sell or remortgage?
What happens if the original contract cannot be found?
What happens if rights are sold to another company?
And most importantly of all:
Who is actually responsible for protecting the consumer?
The more information I have obtained, the clearer one thing has become.
There is no simple answer.
What I have found instead is a fragmented system, spread across different regulators, government departments, insolvency rules, consumer law, property law and contractual arrangements.
And the worrying part is that many of these problems are not new.
THE WARNING SIGNS WERE THERE YEARS AGO
Two separate internal reviews by the Department for Business and Trade have now overturned earlier “information not held” responses.
Fresh searches identified historic Citizens Advice material concerning solar-panel mis-selling by Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd (HELMS).
That material records problems going back to 2016.
Citizens Advice described becoming aware of the issue in November 2016 after attending a community meeting involving around 40 affected people.
The material says Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd had targeted residential areas with solar-panel and other energy-efficiency offers.
It records concerns including:
• homeowners not owning the feed-in tariff income;
• consumers continuing to pay Green Deal charges;
• alleged misrepresentation at the point of sale;
• rising energy bills;
• building-warrant problems;
• and Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd later entering liquidation.
The material also shows how fragmented the redress system was even then.
Citizens Advice helped affected consumers complain to the Green Deal Finance Company and the Financial Ombudsman.
It recorded that the Green Deal Ombudsman would not take the complaints.
MPs became involved.
There was political action in Westminster and Holyrood.
Local authorities had to deal with building standards issues.
Legal advice was sought on the status of feed-in tariff contracts.
In other words, many of the issues we are now seeing again were already visible years ago.
The central themes are strikingly familiar:
ownership problems,
consumer misunderstanding,
long-term financial obligations,
provider failure,
difficulty obtaining redress,
and uncertainty over who is responsible.
THE PROBLEMS HAVE NOT DISAPPEARED
Fast forward to 2026.
Tomato Energy and related businesses have collapsed.
Senapt Limited and Senapt Assets Limited entered administration.
Consumers are now trying to understand what rights and obligations survive, who owns installed equipment, whether contracts can be transferred, and what happens where the original documentation is disputed or missing.
The latest Senapt Assets administrator’s progress report is particularly important.
It confirms that an interested party had been identified to acquire the customer contracts and tangible assets.
At the time covered by the report, that interested party was still carrying out due diligence.
That means the wider household portfolio had not yet completed a sale during the reporting period.
The same report also says some customers had approached the administrators directly to buy the equipment attached to their own homes.
The administrators had already realised money from those direct purchases.
They also specifically invited other customers who might wish to acquire the “chattel assets” at their properties to contact them rather than have their contracts and assets transferred as part of the wider business sale.
That raises a very obvious question.
If consumers can buy their own equipment directly, what exactly is the proposed purchaser buying?
Is it:
• the physical solar panels and batteries;
• customer contracts;
• payment rights;
• termination rights;
• future income streams;
• monitoring rights;
• maintenance obligations;
• warranties;
• or some combination of these?
And if valuable rights are transferred, are the corresponding obligations transferred too?
That is still not clear.
THE REGULATORY GAP IS BECOMING HARDER TO IGNORE
I have now tested this with several different public bodies.
The answers are revealing.
The Competition and Markets Authority has confirmed that it does not hold bespoke final internal policy or legal analysis dealing specifically with the sort of long-term renewable-energy exit, buyout and successor-transfer problems I asked about.
It does point to general consumer-law protections around unfair contract terms, transparency, disproportionate termination charges and transfer of responsibilities.
But there is no bespoke framework for this exact problem.
The CMA also identifies the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero as the lead department for Government policy in the sector.
The Insolvency Service has also confirmed that it does not hold the specific policy or guidance I asked for on matters including:
• connected-party purchasers;
• successor or phoenix-type businesses;
• purchaser financial resilience;
• operational capability;
• due diligence on customer contracts;
• transfer of long-term obligations;
• and intervention where consumer detriment is a concern.
That matters.
It means the insolvency system itself does not appear to have a bespoke consumer-protection framework for this category of domestic renewable portfolio sale.
Ofgem has also produced a significant response.
It has confirmed that one withheld document concerning domestic solar arrangements was created in the context of an ongoing compliance investigation and potential enforcement action.
Ofgem says disclosure would prejudice the scope, direction and assessment of that regulatory activity.
That means the issues are not merely theoretical.
There has been active regulatory consideration of compliance and enforcement.
I have now referred Ofgem’s refusal to disclose the document in full to the Information Commissioner.
The ICO complaint is live.
OTHER ICO CASES ARE ALSO NOW OPEN
There are also separate ICO complaints involving HMRC and Companies House which have been accepted as eligible for investigation.
That does not mean the ICO has ruled in my favour.
It does mean the complaints have passed the initial eligibility stage and will be investigated when allocated.
The wider picture is now difficult to ignore.
There is historic evidence of serious solar-related consumer problems.
There are current administration and portfolio-transfer issues.
There are live regulatory questions.
There are gaps in bespoke guidance.
And different public bodies continue to point towards different parts of the system.
SO WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE PROBLEM?
That is the question I keep coming back to.
If a homeowner is trapped in a long-term arrangement with equipment attached to their home and the original provider fails, who is actually responsible?
Is it Ofgem?
The Insolvency Service?
The CMA?
Trading Standards?
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero?
The Department for Business and Trade?
The courts?
An ombudsman?
The insolvency practitioner?
The purchaser of the portfolio?
Or the consumer themselves?
At the moment, the answer appears to depend on which part of the problem you are asking about.
That is not good enough.
A consumer should not need to understand the boundary between insolvency law, energy regulation, consumer law, property law and contractual assignment just to work out who they can turn to.
PROPERTY SALES MAKE THIS URGENT
This is not just a technical regulatory debate.
People have homes tied up in these arrangements.
That means the consequences are real.
A homeowner may need to sell.
A mortgage lender may refuse to proceed.
A buyer’s solicitor may ask who owns the equipment.
A contract may be missing.
A lease may not have been registered.
A termination or buyout payment may be demanded.
The original provider may no longer exist.
The administrator may be trying to realise value for creditors.
And the consumer may be caught in the middle.
A property transaction cannot wait six months while regulators decide whose problem it is.
There needs to be a fast, clear route to resolution.
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE
In my view, Government now needs to do three things.
First, it needs to identify one clear lead body with responsibility for consumer protection when long-term domestic renewable arrangements fail.
Second, it needs to create a proper statutory market-exit framework.
That framework should cover:
• ownership of equipment;
• transfer of contracts;
• validation of individual agreements;
• maintenance;
• warranties;
• monitoring;
• safety;
• insurance;
• property sales;
• buyout and exit rights;
• removal;
• data protection;
• redress;
• and what happens if the successor company later fails.
Third, there needs to be a clear rule that consumer obligations cannot simply survive while the benefits that formed part of the original bargain disappear.
If a purchaser acquires the valuable rights, it should also be clear what obligations come with them.
THE NEXT PHASE – WAVE 9
I am now beginning the next phase of this work.
I am calling it Wave 9.
The focus will be much more forensic.
I want to establish:
• who the proposed purchaser is;
• who ultimately owns the Senapt Assets portfolio;
• whether any purchaser is connected with former directors, shareholders or management;
• what exactly is being transferred;
• whether individual contracts are being checked;
• whether disputed or missing agreements are being identified;
• whether customer data is being transferred;
• who is taking on maintenance and warranty obligations;
• how exit and buyout charges are being calculated;
• and what power any regulator has to intervene before the transaction completes.
I will also be writing again to my MP, Michael Payne, because I believe this now requires Parliamentary and ministerial scrutiny.
This is not an argument against solar power, battery storage or cleaner energy.
Quite the opposite.
If Government wants people to trust these technologies, it has to make sure consumers are not left carrying the risk when the commercial model behind them collapses.
The warning signs were there years ago.
The problems are still here.
The difference now is that we have much more evidence.
And the question is becoming harder to avoid:
When a solar provider fails, who protects the homeowner?
DISCLAIMER
This article is based on official Freedom of Information responses, internal review decisions, Companies House filings, administrator reports and other documentary evidence.
Where allegations or concerns are referred to, they are presented as allegations or recorded concerns unless formally established otherwise.
Nothing in this article should be taken as an allegation of criminal conduct or wrongdoing by any individual or company unless expressly stated as an established finding by a competent authority.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lee Odams is a Nottinghamshire-based bus driver, trade union representative and campaigner who has used Freedom of Information legislation extensively to investigate consumer, transport, public-policy and accountability issues.
He has been researching the regulatory and consumer-protection issues surrounding long-term domestic solar and battery arrangements following provider failure.
TAGS
Solar Panels, Solar Energy, Battery Storage, Tomato Energy, Tomatopia, Senapt, Senapt Assets, Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd, HELMS, Green Deal, Ofgem, CMA, Insolvency Service, DESNZ, DBT, Companies House, ICO, Consumer Protection, Insolvency, Renewable Energy, Property Rights, Buyout Charges, Exit Fees, Solar Leases, Solar Contracts, Energy Regulation, Consumer Rights, Freedom of Information, FOI, Regulatory Gaps, Homeowners, Property Sales, Remortgage, Renewable Energy Policy
Source: https://leeodams.blogspot.com/2026/09/years-of-warnings-no-clear-safety-net.html
Auto-imported from Lee Odam's blog.