MEP Werke GmbH: Solar leasing models are criticised by consumer

​In a nutshell:

Terms of contract of one of the most successful newcomer companies for solar leasing models has become an object of fierce criticism from consumer protection groups claiming that the general business terms of MEP company are unfair. Utility companies that often use the so-called ”white-label solutions” for general business terms developed by start-up, sales-oriented solar companies are often rightly advised to have these general business terms checked for compliance with the law on general business terms before using them uncritically in transactions with their customers.

​In a nutshell:

Terms of contract of one of the most successful newcomer companies for solar leasing models has become an object of fierce criticism from consumer protection groups claiming that the general business terms of MEP company are unfair. Utility companies that often use the so-called ”white-label solutions” for general business terms developed by start-up, sales-oriented solar companies are often rightly advised to have these general business terms checked for compliance with the law on general business terms before using them uncritically in transactions with their customers.

After numerous solar leasing models were already criticised by consumer protection groups in the past, the Consumer Advice Centre NRW [Verbraucherzentrale NRW] has now cautioned MEP Werke GmbH, one of the most successful newcomers in the sector of solar leasing models, for improper structuring its general business terms. Primarily, the Consumer Advice Centre NRW admonished the company for the structure where payments start to be charged before PV plants are commissioned.

Basically, it often happens that general business terms include numerous structures that are questionable in terms of their compliance with the law on general business terms and the EEG. Thus, e.g. the designation ”rent” and advertising an ”all-round carefree package” including e.g. insurance and comprehensive servicing & maintenance services are contrary to the EEG‘s requirement where customers must assume a significant business risk. Moreover, solar leasing models are subject to a financial supervision requirement, a problem that the legislator has still not solved satisfyingly. Many offers lack the proof that they obtained the so-called ”negative information”, a document usually issued by the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) to certify exceptional relief from the financial supervision requirement. Finally, it is questionable whether the coupling of a long-term solar leasing agreement with maintenance services and other servicing operations is admissible under the law on general business terms.

MEP Werke GmbH publicly rejected the criticism of the consumer protection groups. It will be exciting to see whether MEP Werke GmbH will nonetheless amend its general business terms or whether the mainly still open issues will be referred to the court for its decision for the first time ever. Utility companies that often use the so-called ”white-label solutions” for general business terms developed by start-up, sales-oriented solar companies are often rightly advised to have these general business terms checked in terms of compliance with the law on general business terms prior to applying them non-critically to the relationships with their clients.

After numerous solar leasing models were already criticised by consumer protection groups in the past, the Consumer Advice Centre NRW [Verbraucherzentrale NRW] has now cautioned MEP Werke GmbH, one of the most successful newcomers in the sector of solar leasing models, for improper structuring its general business terms. Primarily, the Consumer Advice Centre NRW admonished the company for the structure where payments start to be charged before PV plants are commissioned.

Basically, it often happens that general business terms include numerous structures that are questionable in terms of their compliance with the law on general business terms and the EEG. Thus, e.g. the designation ”rent” and advertising an ”all-round carefree package” including e.g. insurance and comprehensive servicing & maintenance services are contrary to the EEG‘s requirement where customers must assume a significant business risk. Moreover, solar leasing models are subject to a financial supervision requirement, a problem that the legislator has still not solved satisfyingly. Many offers lack the proof that they obtained the so-called ”negative information”, a document usually issued by the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) to certify exceptional relief from the financial supervision requirement. Finally, it is questionable whether the coupling of a long-term solar leasing agreement with maintenance services and other servicing operations is admissible under the law on general business terms.

MEP Werke GmbH publicly rejected the criticism of the consumer protection groups. It will be exciting to see whether MEP Werke GmbH will nonetheless amend its general business terms or whether the mainly still open issues will be referred to the court for its decision for the first time ever. Utility companies that often use the so-called ”white-label solutions” for general business terms developed by start-up, sales-oriented solar companies are often rightly advised to have these general business terms checked in terms of compliance with the law on general business terms prior to applying them non-critically to the relationships with their clients.