Even some who like solar panels voted against forcing them on landlords. The result was an overwhelming No, and the most-respected No case did not argue about panels at all, but about who landlords are.
That case asked when the government would “stop assuming landlords are all cash cows”, noting that many are “accidental landlords through inheritance or the leasehold debacle”. Around it ran a steady worry that the bill would land on tenants: one voter wrote that “Landlords will just pass the costs onto their tenants”, and another warned of supply, saying a large up-front cost “risks greatly restricting supply of rental housing”. Others pointed out that landlords already have EPC targets and may reach them another way.
The Yes side's most-respected arguments were short and hedged. One pointed to social and council housing, where fitting panels is “occurring with increasing frequency”; another said yes “Where it is possible”, citing an unsuitable roof. A third was blunter, welcoming anything that pushes landlords to sell back to home owners. Only one Yes voter tackled the rent worry head on, proposing strict rent controls alongside a mandate.
The No side meanwhile kept returning to a middle path: several backed incentives, and some wanted the rule for new builds instead. That is a wider argument over regulation of the private rented sector, and No voters framed it as a choice between encouragement and compulsion.
In the end, even those sympathetic to solar kept asking who pays.
58 Opinions
When will some people and this Govt stop assuming landlords are all cash cows? Many are accidental landlords through inheritance or the leasehold debacle. If they can afford solar panels, let them choose.
The government has an ideological hatred of landlords on principle. This is just one of many landlord bashing measures. Those who aren’t blinded by socialist ideology understand that higher costs on landlords just means higher prices for tenants. Stop meddling in markets
That’s the idea, make it even MORE difficult, costly & troublesome to provide rented homes. Who comes up with this nonsense? We have a massive deficit of available homes. The very last thing we need is to put ever more barriers in front of prospective providers.
Imposing such a large up-front cost on landlords risks greatly restricting supply of rental housing. That would push up rents.
Not unless you are going to allow the landlords the right to hike the rent to cover the costs of the panels (20 yr life) and the converter (10 Yr life) If the landlord is then providing a property that comes with the benefit of lower bills for the tenant but potentially higher bills for the landlord in terms of extra insurances and potential repair costs then you have to accept that the landlord should be allowed to proportionally increase rents to cover those outgoings....
Stop legislating to virtual signal with other people's money.
Should private landlords have to rise rents due to mandatory solar panels on their properties? No, we should leave it to free market. If demand for such properties to rent will be big enough, we will see a lot of Chinese solar panel in country where Sun is shining at our roofs 16% to 17% of the total time in a year.
Landlords have targets EPC bands, how they reach them is personal choice and solar panels are often not the optimum solution.
No, but all new builds should have them by law.
Anything that makes landlords lives harder and forces them to sell back to home owners