Tribunal finds consent breach but rejects sanctions in Green Deal solar panel dispute

The First-tier Tribunal delivered a nuanced judgement in Kaylee Slee v The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, finding a technical breach of Green Deal regulations whilst rejecting the imposition of sanctions on the appellant tenant.

Case Background

The dispute centred on solar panel installations at a Seaham property in County Durham, where Ms Slee, as tenant, had entered into a Green Deal arrangement in June 2024. The Secretary of State subsequently issued sanctions following a complaint from the property owner, who alleged that Ms Slee had failed to obtain the requisite written consent before proceeding with the installation.

The sanctions notice required Ms Slee to compensate GDFC Assets Ltd £3,602.55 plus ongoing interest, representing the loan obligations acquired by the company. Ms Slee contested the decision, maintaining that her landlord had either granted consent or been aware of the installation due to his proximity to the property and the visible nature of the works.

Regulatory Framework

The tribunal's analysis focused on regulation 36 of the Framework Regulations, which mandates written consent from property owners before Green Deal installations can proceed. As the designated "improver" under the regulatory scheme, Ms Slee bore responsibility for securing this consent.

The tribunal noted significant gaps in contemporaneous documentation that could have substantiated Ms Slee's position. Crucially, neither Ms Slee nor SunSpirit, the installer, possessed records confirming the owner's written permission at the relevant time.

Tribunal's Analysis

The paper-based determination revealed several factors that complicated the consent issue. The property owner's delayed complaint raised questions about the credibility of his assertion that consent had never been granted. The tribunal observed that the owner had not objected during the installation period despite living in close proximity to the property.

Whilst the tribunal ultimately found that the burden of proof could not be satisfied to establish prior written consent—confirming a breach of regulation 36—it identified significant mitigating circumstances that influenced the sanctions decision.

Key Finding on Attribution

The tribunal's most significant finding concerned the attribution of responsibility for the regulatory breach. Rather than placing sole culpability on Ms Slee, the panel determined that the technical breach was partly attributable to the actions of the Green Deal provider itself.

This finding proved decisive in the tribunal's approach to sanctions. The panel concluded that imposing compensation requirements on Ms Slee would be inequitable given the provider's contributory role in the compliance failure.

Judgement and Implications

The tribunal allowed the appeal in part, ruling that no sanctions should be imposed on Ms Slee despite the confirmed regulatory breach. This outcome reflected the panel's assessment that both the property owner's conduct and the provider's actions had created circumstances that undermined Ms Slee's ability to demonstrate regulatory compliance effectively.

The decision highlights the complex interplay of responsibilities within the Green Deal framework and the importance of contemporaneous documentation in property improvement disputes. The judgement demonstrates that technical regulatory breaches do not automatically warrant the imposition of sanctions where multiple parties have contributed to compliance failures.

The case establishes important precedent regarding the attribution of responsibility in Green Deal disputes and the tribunal's willingness to consider the broader circumstances surrounding regulatory breaches when determining appropriate sanctions.