.... identifying houses that would qualify for FREE DAYTIME ELECTRICITY !! "

Said the very salesman-looking bloke in the hi-vis jacket standing at my
door. "Ah, so that would be solar panels that you're trying to flog me then
...." said I.

"Well, er, er, yes. We've got some very special deals available for people
like yourself if you qualify !"

I (reasonably) politely suggested that I was not interested, and that he
should go and see if he could find another house that qualified ...

Where do these people get this spiel from ? Do they learn it off a company
crib card, or do they come up with it themselves ? I have to admit that I
hadn't heard this one before, and it's reasonably clever sticking the word
'daytime' in there, as most folk probably wouldn't immediately catch the
connection, allowing him to get into his stride.

On a slightly different note though, I came across this today, which if it
isn't being hyped too much for the sake of making a publicity splash, might
show some promise to make the windmills and solar panels a bit better
prospect.

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/201...newable-energy

Note to Harry.

You could put yourself up as an enthusiastic test subject and have a tank
put in your garden ... d;-)

Arfa

On 17/01/2014 17:31, Arfa Daily wrote:
....
Note to Harry.

You could put yourself up as an enthusiastic test subject and have a
tank put in your garden ... d;-)

His place does look like a blockhouse, so one of these in the garden
would be appropriate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TankshermanM4.jpg

Colin Bignell

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
... identifying houses that would qualify for FREE DAYTIME ELECTRICITY !!
"

Said the very salesman-looking bloke in the hi-vis jacket standing at my
door. "Ah, so that would be solar panels that you're trying to flog me
then ..." said I.

"Well, er, er, yes. We've got some very special deals available for people
like yourself if you qualify !"

I (reasonably) politely suggested that I was not interested, and that he
should go and see if he could find another house that qualified ...

Where do these people get this spiel from ? Do they learn it off a company
crib card, or do they come up with it themselves ? I have to admit that I
hadn't heard this one before, and it's reasonably clever sticking the word
'daytime' in there, as most folk probably wouldn't immediately catch the
connection, allowing him to get into his stride.


Common practice.
http://www.solar-help.co.uk/finance-...-your-home.htm

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them you should have done
it yourself years ago.
Opportunity missed.

On 17/01/2014 18:21, harryagain wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
... identifying houses that would qualify for FREE DAYTIME ELECTRICITY !!
"

Said the very salesman-looking bloke in the hi-vis jacket standing at my
door. "Ah, so that would be solar panels that you're trying to flog me
then ..." said I.

"Well, er, er, yes. We've got some very special deals available for people
like yourself if you qualify !"

I (reasonably) politely suggested that I was not interested, and that he
should go and see if he could find another house that qualified ...

Where do these people get this spiel from ? Do they learn it off a company
crib card, or do they come up with it themselves ? I have to admit that I
hadn't heard this one before, and it's reasonably clever sticking the word
'daytime' in there, as most folk probably wouldn't immediately catch the
connection, allowing him to get into his stride.


Common practice.
http://www.solar-help.co.uk/finance-...-your-home.htm

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them ...

You don't really think that doorstep solar panel salesmen could care
less whether the roof was ideal or not? They just want to make a sale.

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:15:54 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:


Common practice.
http://www.solar-help.co.uk/finance-...-your-home.htm

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them ...

You don't really think that doorstep solar panel salesmen could care
less whether the roof was ideal or not? They just want to make a sale.

Colin Bignell


The ones offering you a system for the 'free daytime leccy' are only
knocking on doors with the right size and facing roof.

We had one call.
So I dragged him round to the back and asked where he'd put his solar
panels - would he take ours off first?
--
http://www.voucherfreebies.co.uk

On 17/01/2014 17:31, Arfa Daily wrote:

Where do these people get this spiel from ? Do they learn it off a
company crib card, or do they come up with it themselves ? I have to
admit that I hadn't heard this one before, and it's reasonably clever
sticking the word 'daytime' in there, as most folk probably wouldn't
immediately catch the connection, allowing him to get into his stride.

The free lekky bit suggests that its one of these schemes where they
install the kit and and claim all the FIT payments, and you get to keep
the (relatively) worthless juice generated.

The "if you qualify" bit is a classic hook designed to make the punter
feel like there is scope for a deal being taken away from them before
they even get offered it (and folks don't like having stuff taken away
form them even if they did not really want it in the first place). Hence
they are automatically more protective of the deal before they even here
it because it might be withdrawn. Its a better version of "only for a
limited time" or "first n customers" etc. It also nicely ties in with
the point that not all roofs will be suitable.

On a slightly different note though, I came across this today, which if
it isn't being hyped too much for the sake of making a publicity splash,
might show some promise to make the windmills and solar panels a bit
better prospect.

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/201...newable-energy


Note to Harry.

You could put yourself up as an enthusiastic test subject and have a
tank put in your garden ... d;-)

Arfa


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/01/2014 18:21, harryagain wrote:

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them you should have done
it yourself years ago.
Opportunity missed.

Its comments like these that lay bare harry's real motivations. If one
is hoping to save the planet, then why would it be an opportunity
missed? New panels will generate as much or more as old ones...

The only opportunity missed is to dip you hands into the pockets of
other electricity consumers quite as deeply, due to the less obscene
level of FiT payment on offer now.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2014 18:21, harryagain wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
... identifying houses that would qualify for FREE DAYTIME ELECTRICITY
!!
"

Said the very salesman-looking bloke in the hi-vis jacket standing at my
door. "Ah, so that would be solar panels that you're trying to flog me
then ..." said I.

"Well, er, er, yes. We've got some very special deals available for
people
like yourself if you qualify !"

I (reasonably) politely suggested that I was not interested, and that he
should go and see if he could find another house that qualified ...

Where do these people get this spiel from ? Do they learn it off a
company
crib card, or do they come up with it themselves ? I have to admit that
I
hadn't heard this one before, and it's reasonably clever sticking the
word
'daytime' in there, as most folk probably wouldn't immediately catch the
connection, allowing him to get into his stride.


Common practice.
http://www.solar-help.co.uk/finance-...-your-home.htm

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them ...

You don't really think that doorstep solar panel salesmen could care less
whether the roof was ideal or not? They just want to make a sale.

Colin Bignell

Don't be your usual stupid self.
The more ideally situated the roof, the bigger the FIT payment recieved so
making a bigger return on the outlay.

The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 18:21, harryagain wrote:

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them you should have
done
it yourself years ago.
Opportunity missed.

Its comments like these that lay bare harry's real motivations. If one is
hoping to save the planet, then why would it be an opportunity missed? New
panels will generate as much or more as old ones...

The only opportunity missed is to dip you hands into the pockets of other
electricity consumers quite as deeply, due to the less obscene level of
FiT payment on offer now.

--
Cheers,

John.

You are a hlf wit.
High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.
The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could see the
advantages.
It is Arfa who has missed his chance.
However it still pays (though less) due to the fall in installation cost so
he should look into getting his own system.
I expect the rent-a-roof firms will pay even less a smost will have their
own installation team.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 17:31, Arfa Daily wrote:

Where do these people get this spiel from ? Do they learn it off a
company crib card, or do they come up with it themselves ? I have to
admit that I hadn't heard this one before, and it's reasonably clever
sticking the word 'daytime' in there, as most folk probably wouldn't
immediately catch the connection, allowing him to get into his stride.

The free lekky bit suggests that its one of these schemes where they
install the kit and and claim all the FIT payments, and you get to keep
the (relatively) worthless juice generated.

The "if you qualify" bit is a classic hook designed to make the punter
feel like there is scope for a deal being taken away from them before they
even get offered it (and folks don't like having stuff taken away form
them even if they did not really want it in the first place). Hence they
are automatically more protective of the deal before they even here it
because it might be withdrawn. Its a better version of "only for a limited
time" or "first n customers" etc. It also nicely ties in with the point
that not all roofs will be suitable.

The "if you qualify" bit means he has a near ideal roof.
There is no need for them to go for anything less, there are plenty of ideal
roofs out there..

My electricty bill is cut by around 25%.
50% claims are lies in most cases.
I buy no petrol.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 07:44:53 +0000, harryagain wrote:

The more ideally situated the roof, the bigger the FIT payment recieved
so making a bigger return on the outlay.

Bzzt. No.

We were going to put solar on the roof of our studio outbuilding. South-
facing, no shadows. Perfect.

Except that the ****ing useless waste-of-paper EPC on the (very well
insulated and efficient) house is too low to give us the worthwhile FiT.

On Saturday 18 January 2014 07:50 harryagain wrote in uk.d-i-y:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 18:21, harryagain wrote:

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them you should
have done
it yourself years ago.
Opportunity missed.

Its comments like these that lay bare harry's real motivations. If
one is hoping to save the planet, then why would it be an opportunity
missed? New panels will generate as much or more as old ones...

The only opportunity missed is to dip you hands into the pockets of
other electricity consumers quite as deeply, due to the less obscene
level of FiT payment on offer now.

--
Cheers,

John.

You are a hlf wit.
High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

Oi - not with me paying!

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal
coverage

On 18/01/14 10:20, Tim Watts wrote:
On Saturday 18 January 2014 07:50 harryagain wrote in uk.d-i-y:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.
Oi - not with me paying!



High prices were not necessary to get any other industry started. Either
they were covered by private investment (say LCD TV panels) , or the
products was so good that people were prepared to pay the price (as in
computers, early on).


Cost of wind turbines remains static after 30 years at around £1m/Mw.


Solar panels are even more expoesnive. And without batteries they are
only half a solution anyway, batteries haven't been getting cheaper either.

Harry is just spouting the usual drivelling greeny bollox that has
resulted in him being in my killfile for the last year.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 18/01/2014 07:54, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 17:31, Arfa Daily wrote:

Where do these people get this spiel from ? Do they learn it off a
company crib card, or do they come up with it themselves ? I have to
admit that I hadn't heard this one before, and it's reasonably clever
sticking the word 'daytime' in there, as most folk probably wouldn't
immediately catch the connection, allowing him to get into his stride.

The free lekky bit suggests that its one of these schemes where they
install the kit and and claim all the FIT payments, and you get to keep
the (relatively) worthless juice generated.

The "if you qualify" bit is a classic hook designed to make the punter
feel like there is scope for a deal being taken away from them before they
even get offered it (and folks don't like having stuff taken away form
them even if they did not really want it in the first place). Hence they
are automatically more protective of the deal before they even here it
because it might be withdrawn. Its a better version of "only for a limited
time" or "first n customers" etc. It also nicely ties in with the point
that not all roofs will be suitable.

The "if you qualify" bit means he has a near ideal roof.

Do you suppose a salesman would wast time on prospects without an "ideal
roof"?

There is no need for them to go for anything less, there are plenty of ideal
roofs out there..

Precisely - the wording has nothing to do with qualifying the roof and
everything to do with increasing the chances of a sale.

My electricty bill is cut by around 25%.
50% claims are lies in most cases.
I buy no petrol.

I buy no diesel




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 17:31, Arfa Daily wrote:

Where do these people get this spiel from ? Do they learn it off a
company crib card, or do they come up with it themselves ? I have to
admit that I hadn't heard this one before, and it's reasonably clever
sticking the word 'daytime' in there, as most folk probably wouldn't
immediately catch the connection, allowing him to get into his stride.

The free lekky bit suggests that its one of these schemes where they
install the kit and and claim all the FIT payments, and you get to keep
the (relatively) worthless juice generated.

If they pay 100% of the installation costs that seems a perfectly good deal
to me

But not all of them do that

tim

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 17:31, Arfa Daily wrote:

Where do these people get this spiel from ? Do they learn it off a
company crib card, or do they come up with it themselves ? I have to
admit that I hadn't heard this one before, and it's reasonably clever
sticking the word 'daytime' in there, as most folk probably wouldn't
immediately catch the connection, allowing him to get into his stride.

The free lekky bit suggests that its one of these schemes where they
install the kit and and claim all the FIT payments, and you get to keep
the (relatively) worthless juice generated.

The "if you qualify" bit is a classic hook designed to make the punter
feel like there is scope for a deal being taken away from them before
they even get offered it (and folks don't like having stuff taken away
form them even if they did not really want it in the first place). Hence
they are automatically more protective of the deal before they even here
it because it might be withdrawn. Its a better version of "only for a
limited time" or "first n customers" etc. It also nicely ties in with the
point that not all roofs will be suitable.

The "if you qualify" bit means he has a near ideal roof.
There is no need for them to go for anything less, there are plenty of
ideal roofs out there..

My electricty bill is cut by around 25%.
50% claims are lies in most cases.
I buy no petrol.

got a diesel car :-)

tim

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 18:21, harryagain wrote:

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them you should have
done
it yourself years ago.
Opportunity missed.

Its comments like these that lay bare harry's real motivations. If one is
hoping to save the planet, then why would it be an opportunity missed?
New panels will generate as much or more as old ones...

The only opportunity missed is to dip you hands into the pockets of other
electricity consumers quite as deeply, due to the less obscene level of
FiT payment on offer now.

--
Cheers,

John.

You are a hlf wit.
High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

No they weren't

an industry that only exists on government subsidy is not an industry that
needs to start

tim

On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
....
The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.

They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An ideal
roof, to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody
who says yes.

Colin Bignell

On 18/01/2014 11:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/01/2014 07:54, harryagain wrote:

The "if you qualify" bit means he has a near ideal roof.

Do you suppose a salesman would wast time on prospects without an "ideal
roof"?

Yes, as the cost to him of knocking on the door is so low in comparison
to his potential commission, it's worth his or her while. It's the same
business model as the call centres. Make as many nearly free calls as
possible, and the oerall payback is better than if you carefully select
your clients.

Sales people are selected on their ability to blag a sale, not their
technical ability.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could see the
advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

--
Terry Fields

On 18/01/2014 07:50, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
....
It is Arfa who has missed his chance.
However it still pays (though less) due to the fall in installation cost so
he should look into getting his own system...

Just to check your claims and because I will need to re-roof my house
soon. I have run a few figures. My house faces SW, so the roof is not
ideal. However, my garage runs east to west and that would allow me a
south facing array 8m x 4m at an angle of 42 degrees, the ideal year
round angle at my latitude. I rather doubt I would get planning
permission to put a two angle array on the garage, as the winter angle
would add more than 3 metres to the height of the building.

According to this site:

http://www.solarguide.co.uk/solar-pv...tor#bestresult

That would give me a 4kWp system, which would cost, on average, £6,561
and give me a return of £861.83 per annum. According to the site, that
would recover my money in 6 years 9 months.

However, that ignores the cost of not investing the money elsewhere.
Assuming a return of 9.03% on capital, which I achieve from rental on
property I own, it would take 14 years for the solar installation to
return more than an investment of the same amount at 9.03% and, after 19
years, I would make a total profit of £969.79 from the solar panels.
However, unlike the solar PV system, the capital invested in the
properties is not only still available to me, but has actually increased
in value by 32% in the past 20 years, equivalent to £2,099 on an
investment of £6,561. As I have said before, my money is better invested
elsewhere.

Would I have been better to get in early, as you claim? According to
other posts by you, you have a 4kWP system, which cost you £14,000 to
install. Running the same calculations on that investment and the higher
rates of FIT, I would not do better than a 9.03% investment by the end
of 20 years, so buying now would actually be slightly better.

In case you think my rate of return is unrealistically high, a cousin of
mine has just bought a couple of buildings rented to a garage and a tyre
fitting business for £140,000 and his rental income from those is
£17,000 pa, or 12.14% return on capital.

Colin Bignell

On Saturday 18 January 2014 12:42 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:


In case you think my rate of return is unrealistically high, a cousin
of mine has just bought a couple of buildings rented to a garage and a
tyre fitting business for £140,000 and his rental income from those is
£17,000 pa, or 12.14% return on capital.

I was going to ask - I thought 5% was more the norm? Is yours domestic
property?

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal
coverage

On Saturday, 18 January 2014 11:30:56 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:

...

The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free roofs.

I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost less.

Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.



They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An ideal

roof, to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody

who says yes.

As opposed to which other type might that be?

On Saturday, 18 January 2014 11:14:12 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Cost of wind turbines remains static after 30 years at around £1m/Mw.

Please explain that.
How could a machine cost the same to run when it is 30 years old and older than the pound per meter per megawat it costs now?
(Shouldn't that read per square meter?)

(Wind foils and spherical geometry are OK by me; it's the maths that does my head in.)

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On Saturday 18 January 2014 12:42 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:


In case you think my rate of return is unrealistically high, a cousin
of mine has just bought a couple of buildings rented to a garage and a
tyre fitting business for £140,000 and his rental income from those is
£17,000 pa, or 12.14% return on capital.

I was going to ask - I thought 5% was more the norm? Is yours domestic
property?

No he rents commercial property

I've told him before he is extremely lucky to have a "single" commercial
property that give him this RoR.

As a "base-load" investment for "normal" people, commercial property is
generally recognised as a do not touch with a barge pole option.

Randomly choosing a commercial property to "buy to rent" could as easily see
you getting a 25 year return of 0% income and a loss on capital invested,
instead of the "luck" that Colin has had (though ISTR he rents the property
that he owns, to a company that he owns, so he has no risk of the tenant
doing a flit - this is not something that 99% of owner can rely upon).

Of course, you can get professional advice that will stop you buying such a
"dog" property, but such advice isn't cheap and generally isn't available to
people with less than 7 figures to invest.

And even with access to advice, the really good property will still be going
to those better connected than you. In many cases commercial property
really does only become available to normal people to buy, because no other
mug will!

tim

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 18 January 2014 11:14:12 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Cost of wind turbines remains static after 30 years at around £1m/Mw.

Please explain that.
How could a machine cost the same to run when it is 30 years old and older
than the pound per meter per megawat it costs now?
(Shouldn't that read per square meter?)

(Wind foils and spherical geometry are OK by me; it's the maths that does my
head in.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He means they cost the same to new-build

Unlike other "electronic" devices, the costs haven't come down by a factor
of 10 (in absolute term, 30 in relative terms)

That's hardly surprising. 90% of the costs of a wind turbine is the
"building" it sits in, not the electronics.

tim

On Saturday 18 January 2014 15:27 tim...... wrote in uk.d-i-y:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On Saturday 18 January 2014 12:42 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:


In case you think my rate of return is unrealistically high, a
cousin of mine has just bought a couple of buildings rented to a
garage and a tyre fitting business for £140,000 and his rental
income from those is £17,000 pa, or 12.14% return on capital.

I was going to ask - I thought 5% was more the norm? Is yours
domestic property?

No he rents commercial property

I've told him before he is extremely lucky to have a "single"
commercial property that give him this RoR.

As a "base-load" investment for "normal" people, commercial property
is generally recognised as a do not touch with a barge pole option.

Randomly choosing a commercial property to "buy to rent" could as
easily see you getting a 25 year return of 0% income and a loss on
capital invested, instead of the "luck" that Colin has had (though
ISTR he rents the property that he owns, to a company that he owns, so
he has no risk of the tenant doing a flit - this is not something that
99% of owner can rely upon).

Of course, you can get professional advice that will stop you buying
such a "dog" property, but such advice isn't cheap and generally isn't
available to people with less than 7 figures to invest.

And even with access to advice, the really good property will still be
going
to those better connected than you. In many cases commercial property
really does only become available to normal people to buy, because no
other mug will!

tim

Wise words...

Normal people (particularly ones who have at some point been tenants) at
least have a basic understanding of the domestic market - what's
expected, "would I live there" and rental rates (easily checked by a
rummage on Zoopla etc).

Vetting new tenants is a fairly well understood process as is dealing
with them when they default (acknowledged that sometimes this is not
always easy, back to good vetting in the first place).

I would not have a clue about commercial[1] - except that I see a lot of
commercial property sit empty for long periods.

[1] Perhaps shops. They might be OK. But again, many can sit empty for
long periods and shops almost always want to remodel and fit upon moving
in, a problem domestic tenants don't raise.



--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal
coverage

On 18/01/2014 15:27, tim...... wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On Saturday 18 January 2014 12:42 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:


In case you think my rate of return is unrealistically high, a cousin
of mine has just bought a couple of buildings rented to a garage and a
tyre fitting business for £140,000 and his rental income from those is
£17,000 pa, or 12.14% return on capital.

I was going to ask - I thought 5% was more the norm? Is yours domestic
property?

No he rents commercial property

I've told him before he is extremely lucky to have a "single" commercial
property that give him this RoR.

It is not particularly unusual for small industrial units in this area.
There are some, of similar size, that rent out for about 15% more per sq
ft, but they can stand empty for a few months when they become empty.

As a "base-load" investment for "normal" people, commercial property is
generally recognised as a do not touch with a barge pole option.

Randomly choosing a commercial property to "buy to rent" could as easily
see you getting a 25 year return of 0% income and a loss on capital
invested, instead of the "luck" that Colin has had (though ISTR he rents
the property that he owns, to a company that he owns, so he has no risk
of the tenant doing a flit - this is not something that 99% of owner can
rely upon).

I stopped renting properties to my own companies when I retired. Since
then, I have had normal commercial leases.

Small industrial units are a much better investment than commercial
properties as a whole. As they attract start-up businesses, they are in
constant demand. If anything, the recession increased the demand as more
people decided to go it alone. It also helps that nobody seems to be
building them these days.

Of course, you can get professional advice that will stop you buying
such a "dog" property, but such advice isn't cheap and generally isn't
available to people with less than 7 figures to invest.

It is perfectly possible to work that out for yourself, as I did.

And even with access to advice, the really good property will still be
going to those better connected than you. In many cases commercial
property really does only become available to normal people to buy,
because no other mug will!

Small units usually sell by word of mouth, when you learn that somebody
is thinking of expanding or retiring. The same goes for renting them
out. When I last had a tenant leave, I had enquiries about the unit
three months before it became available without any need to advertise it.

Colin Bignell

On 18/01/2014 13:39, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Saturday, 18 January 2014 11:30:56 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:

...

The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.



They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An ideal
roof, to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody
who says yes.

As opposed to which other type might that be?

As opposed to Harry's version of ideal.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
...
The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.

They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An ideal roof,
to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody who
says yes.

You dozy old bugger.
They are not selling solar panels.
The householdpays nothing. (Until they want to sell their house that is.)
They are looking for free sites where they can generate maximum income for
themselves.
ie the FIT payment.
The householder only gets free electricity.
So they are only going to be wanting ideal sites.

Probably about 50% of houses will have ideal roofs.
So why go for the duff ones?

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could see
the
advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.


Only it's not cheap.
The taxpayer is paying/will have to pay forever the cost of storing nuclear
waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

Other countries have realised this, but not our numpty government.

On 18/01/2014 16:14, Tim Watts wrote:
....
Normal people (particularly ones who have at some point been tenants) at
least have a basic understanding of the domestic market - what's
expected, "would I live there" and rental rates (easily checked by a
rummage on Zoopla etc).

Commercial rents based upon a rate per square foot for each of
workshop/warehousing, office space or retail area. A browse around
estate agents in the area who specialise in commercial properties will
quickly give you an idea of what the going rates are in the area.

Vetting new tenants is a fairly well understood process as is dealing
with them when they default (acknowledged that sometimes this is not
always easy, back to good vetting in the first place).

You do much the same with commercial tenants, but an established
business should be able to furnish you with accounts and a start-up with
a business plan. If you are a bit dubious, you can do something
relatively safe, like give them a licence to occupy for a cash sum up front.

I would not have a clue about commercial[1] - except that I see a lot of
commercial property sit empty for long periods.

[1] Perhaps shops. They might be OK. But again, many can sit empty for
long periods and shops almost always want to remodel and fit upon moving
in, a problem domestic tenants don't raise.

As with any investment, it comes down to what level of risk you are
willing to accept and the returns should reflect the risk. For
industrial units, 8% is about the minimum for buy to rent. My cousin did
have details of a shop to buy, with a well-established large business on
a long term lease without breaks. I don't recall the exact figures, but
ISTR that gave about 15% return on capital.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:50, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
It is Arfa who has missed his chance.
However it still pays (though less) due to the fall in installation cost
so
he should look into getting his own system...

Just to check your claims and because I will need to re-roof my house
soon. I have run a few figures. My house faces SW, so the roof is not
ideal. However, my garage runs east to west and that would allow me a
south facing array 8m x 4m at an angle of 42 degrees, the ideal year round
angle at my latitude. I rather doubt I would get planning permission to
put a two angle array on the garage, as the winter angle would add more
than 3 metres to the height of the building.

According to this site:

http://www.solarguide.co.uk/solar-pv...tor#bestresult

That would give me a 4kWp system, which would cost, on average, £6,561 and
give me a return of £861.83 per annum. According to the site, that would
recover my money in 6 years 9 months.

However, that ignores the cost of not investing the money elsewhere.
Assuming a return of 9.03% on capital, which I achieve from rental on
property I own, it would take 14 years for the solar installation to
return more than an investment of the same amount at 9.03% and, after 19
years, I would make a total profit of £969.79 from the solar panels.
However, unlike the solar PV system, the capital invested in the
properties is not only still available to me, but has actually increased
in value by 32% in the past 20 years, equivalent to £2,099 on an
investment of £6,561. As I have said before, my money is better invested
elsewhere.

Would I have been better to get in early, as you claim? According to other
posts by you, you have a 4kWP system, which cost you £14,000 to install.
Running the same calculations on that investment and the higher rates of
FIT, I would not do better than a 9.03% investment by the end of 20 years,
so buying now would actually be slightly better.

In case you think my rate of return is unrealistically high, a cousin of
mine has just bought a couple of buildings rented to a garage and a tyre
fitting business for £140,000 and his rental income from those is £17,000
pa, or 12.14% return on capital.

Colin Bignell

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:19:46 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

Randomly choosing a commercial property to "buy to rent" could as
easily see you getting a 25 year return of 0% income and a loss on
capital invested, instead of the "luck" that Colin has had (though ISTR
he rents the property that he owns, to a company that he owns, so he
has no risk of the tenant doing a flit - this is not something that 99%
of owner can rely upon).

I stopped renting properties to my own companies when I retired.

There'd also be a fairly big problem-in-waiting. If ever your company
fails, you've instantly lost the income from your investment at the same
time...

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 11:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/01/2014 07:54, harryagain wrote:

The "if you qualify" bit means he has a near ideal roof.

Do you suppose a salesman would wast time on prospects without an "ideal
roof"?

Yes, as the cost to him of knocking on the door is so low in comparison to
his potential commission, it's worth his or her while. It's the same
business model as the call centres. Make as many nearly free calls as
possible, and the oerall payback is better than if you carefully select
your clients.

Sales people are selected on their ability to blag a sale, not their
technical ability.

They are not selling. They have every incentive to find good roofs.
It would take a bout a half hour to train anyone up to spot good roofs.

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 17:31, Arfa Daily wrote:

Where do these people get this spiel from ? Do they learn it off a
company crib card, or do they come up with it themselves ? I have to
admit that I hadn't heard this one before, and it's reasonably clever
sticking the word 'daytime' in there, as most folk probably wouldn't
immediately catch the connection, allowing him to get into his stride.

The free lekky bit suggests that its one of these schemes where they
install the kit and and claim all the FIT payments, and you get to keep
the (relatively) worthless juice generated.

If they pay 100% of the installation costs that seems a perfectly good
deal to me

But not all of them do that

The main problem is when you come to sell the house.

Then the fine print kicks in. NOT to your advantage.

Wise words...

Normal people (particularly ones who have at some point been tenants) at
least have a basic understanding of the domestic market - what's
expected, "would I live there" and rental rates (easily checked by a
rummage on Zoopla etc).

Vetting new tenants is a fairly well understood process as is dealing
with them when they default (acknowledged that sometimes this is not
always easy, back to good vetting in the first place).

I would not have a clue about commercial[1] - except that I see a lot of
commercial property sit empty for long periods.

Yes why does that happen?, we were looking at a unit in Cambridge around
8 years ago for a customer only problem was it was too large.

Its still empty and still up for letting..



[1] Perhaps shops. They might be OK. But again, many can sit empty for
long periods and shops almost always want to remodel and fit upon moving
in, a problem domestic tenants don't raise.




--
Tony Sayer

harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could see
the advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

Only it's not cheap.
The taxpayer is paying/will have to pay forever the cost of storing nuclear
waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

Other countries have realised this, but not our numpty government.

There's waste, and then there's waste.

Fly ash from coal-fired stations is radioactive, but isn't treated as
hazardous, whereas if it came from a nuclear site the same level of
activity would require stringent controls.

Nuclear waste can be burnt in power-generating reactors designed for
the task.

Radioactive waste from processing rare-earths for windmills doesn't
seem to count either, probably because it's polluting China.

So that leaves us with cheap, reliable, safe nuclear energy.

--
Terry Fields

On 18/01/2014 17:05, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:50, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
It is Arfa who has missed his chance.
However it still pays (though less) due to the fall in installation cost
so
he should look into getting his own system...

Just to check your claims and because I will need to re-roof my house
soon. I have run a few figures. My house faces SW, so the roof is not
ideal. However, my garage runs east to west and that would allow me a
south facing array 8m x 4m at an angle of 42 degrees, the ideal year round
angle at my latitude. I rather doubt I would get planning permission to
put a two angle array on the garage, as the winter angle would add more
than 3 metres to the height of the building.

According to this site:

http://www.solarguide.co.uk/solar-pv...tor#bestresult

That would give me a 4kWp system, which would cost, on average, £6,561 and
give me a return of £861.83 per annum. According to the site, that would
recover my money in 6 years 9 months.

However, that ignores the cost of not investing the money elsewhere.
Assuming a return of 9.03% on capital, which I achieve from rental on
property I own, it would take 14 years for the solar installation to
return more than an investment of the same amount at 9.03% and, after 19
years, I would make a total profit of £969.79 from the solar panels.
However, unlike the solar PV system, the capital invested in the
properties is not only still available to me, but has actually increased
in value by 32% in the past 20 years, equivalent to £2,099 on an
investment of £6,561. As I have said before, my money is better invested
elsewhere.

Would I have been better to get in early, as you claim? According to other
posts by you, you have a 4kWP system, which cost you £14,000 to install.
Running the same calculations on that investment and the higher rates of
FIT, I would not do better than a 9.03% investment by the end of 20 years,
so buying now would actually be slightly better.

In case you think my rate of return is unrealistically high, a cousin of
mine has just bought a couple of buildings rented to a garage and a tyre
fitting business for £140,000 and his rental income from those is £17,000
pa, or 12.14% return on capital.

Colin Bignell

36 deg is the ideal inclination for UK. do you live in Iceland?

As I have pointed out to you before, the ideal angle depends both upon
your latitude and what you are optimising for. 42 degrees gives a better
winter yield than 36 degrees.

If you are going to deduct for loss of income on capaital on solar panels
you have to do it on property to give a proper comparison.

As I have said before, you don't seem to understand discounted cash
flow. The principle is that you have a given sum of money; You then
compare the returns on using that sum of money in different ways and see
what the current net value of each option is.

If all the above was true, why are so many commercial premises standing MT?

It depends upon what you class as a commercial premises. The sort I own,
small industrial units, are in high demand and rarely stand empty for
any length of time.

What about repairs?

Those are the tenants' responsibility. They lease the property in a
specific condition and have to return it in exactly the same condition.

FIT is tax free.

I feed the rental income into a pension scheme, so that is also tax
free. Not that it matters much. Even if I had to deduct tax from the
rental income, the figures are still in favour of keeping the capital.

There is the reduction on electricity bills to take into account.
(Increasing amount)

If you look at the web site I linked to, you will see that is included.

Also the projected FIT return is kept conservative by the rules they have to
abide by. I have exceeded it even in bad years.

Financial projections can only be based upon demonstrable returns, not
pie in the sky claims.

And it adds value to the house.

I would have thought the opposite, but, again, if you want to claim
that, it needs to be quantified to be included as a factor.

You can't get a benefit of £2000/yr any
more.
It means in effect you have a more than fuel bill free house.

A 4kWp array would not cover my electricity use.

It is a permitted developement in most cases, no Planning Permission
required.

Mounting an array on an existing roof may be a permitted development.
Mounting them on an outbuilding and increasing the height by a few
metres almost certainly is not.

And not everyone has £140,000 to invest.

That bought quite a large unit in North Wales. You could probably have
bought a fairly small industrial unit for what you spent on converting
your house.

Colin Bignell

On 18/01/2014 16:53, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:19:46 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

Randomly choosing a commercial property to "buy to rent" could as
easily see you getting a 25 year return of 0% income and a loss on
capital invested, instead of the "luck" that Colin has had (though ISTR
he rents the property that he owns, to a company that he owns, so he
has no risk of the tenant doing a flit - this is not something that 99%
of owner can rely upon).

I stopped renting properties to my own companies when I retired.

There'd also be a fairly big problem-in-waiting. If ever your company
fails, you've instantly lost the income from your investment at the same
time...

There was absolutely no problem letting the units when I sold off my
businesses and retired. Only one of them went to somebody who bought one
of the businesses.

Colin Bignell