In August 2024, the County Court at Nottingham ruled in favour of the Lender and Installer in a claim brought by a consumer via a Claims Management Company (CMC). Despite allegations of misrepresentation and underperformance, the court found that the system was performing as expected and that the consumer had been adequately informed, thanks in part to EPVS validation.
In an increasingly regulated and litigious environment, finance lenders need robust protection against misrepresentation claims related to renewable energy systems. This case study highlights how partnering with an independent certification scheme like EPVS can provide that critical layer of defence.
Background & Complaint
Mr. S, encouraged by a CMC’s “no-win, no-fee” offer, alleged that he was misled into purchasing a solar PV system. He claimed the salesperson promised the system would eliminate his electricity bill and cover his finance payments. Mr. S sought to rescind the contract under Sections 56 and 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.
Core Arguments
- The system had not delivered the promised savings.
- Verbal inducements allegedly made by the salesperson that were not reflected in the written documentation.
- A claim that the documentation was too complex and unclear, and that Mr. S did not fully understand the abbreviated terms and conditions within the contract.
Court Findings
EPVS Managing Director, David Lindsay’s expert testimony played a pivotal role in the outcome of this case.
David demonstrated that, based on the system’s current performance, it was projected to deliver a payback of approximately £36,000 over 30 years. This exceeded the £30,000 estimated at the point of sale, thus underscoring the validity of the original projections.
The judge found no evidence that the salesperson made misleading verbal promises. Instead, he noted:
- The documentation was clear, validated by EPVS, and signed by the claimant.
- The system was performing above expectations, with a projected 30-year return of £36,000 – exceeding the original estimate.
- The claimant’s electricity bill hadn’t dropped due to rising energy prices and increased usage (including an EV and medical equipment).
- The CMC’s calculations ignored key savings and income sources, including battery aggregation payments.
The judge also noted that Mr. S had not raised any concerns about the system’s performance until engaging with the CMC, several years after the installation.
EPVS Insights
This case was notable because the original contract had been validated by EPVS. As an independent certification scheme, EPVS meticulously reviews documentation, product claims, and performance estimates to ensure accuracy and compliance.
Lessons Learned
- Clarity Matters: While the documentation was comprehensive, the judge suggested simplifying key information and avoiding abbreviations.
- Validation Works: EPVS’s role in verifying performance and consumer understanding helped protect both the lender and installer.
- CMC Risk: The financial consequences for the CMC were significant. They were ordered to pay the lender’s costs of £20,000, and their own legal costs, which were estimated at £30,000. This highlights the substantial financial risks associated with defending these types of claims.
This case study demonstrates the tangible benefits of partnering with EPVS. Our rigorous validation process helps lenders ensure the accuracy of their documentation, protect their financial interests, and build stronger relationships with their customers.
Partner with EPVS for Enhanced Protection
By choosing EPVS, you are investing in a proactive defence against misrepresentation claims and demonstrating a commitment to ethical and transparent business practices.
Do you have an opinion, or have you had an experience, relating to the above?
Let us know by emailing info@epvs.co.uk
