Solar owners face a compliance trap despite Eskom relief

• Eskom's registration reprieve does not remove homeowners' legal obligations to ensure rooftop solar installations are electrically compliant.
• An invalid or outdated CoC can expose sellers to transfer delays, disclosure disputes and potentially serious insurance consequences.
• Sellers and agents should verify solar alterations, certificates and installer credentials before a property reaches the transfer stage.

Eskom relief does not mean the compliance risk has disappeared

‍Two developments around rooftop solar have put South African property owners in an unusual position: one appears to reduce the regulatory pressure, while the other reinforces just how important compliance has become.

Eskom's confirmation that residential customers will not be fined or disconnected for failing to register rooftop solar systems by 30 September 2026 has provided some relief following earlier warnings of penalties reaching R30,000.

But property owners should not interpret that reprieve as a relaxation of the legal and technical requirements governing the installation itself.

According to Cor van Deventer, Director at Van Deventer Dowlath & Marx Inc., the distinction is critical because registration and electrical compliance perform fundamentally different functions.

‍

“Five years ago, a CoC confirmed that the wiring was safe and the lights worked. Today it has to account for photovoltaic arrays, battery storage, inverters, electric fencing, gas appliances, and a maintenance manual in line with international standards.”

‍

For homeowners, landlords, property investors and estate agents, the consequences extend beyond the solar system itself. Compliance can affect property transfers, disclosure obligations, insurance claims and ultimately the owner's legal liability.

‍

“Registration and compliance are different legal animals,” says Van Deventer.

‍

Registration vs compliance: know the difference

‍The first misconception property owners need to overcome is that registering a solar system means it is compliant. It doesn't.

• Registration relates primarily to the homeowner's relationship with the electricity distributor, whether Eskom or the relevant municipality. It is governed by the applicable bylaws, tariffs and grid-connection requirements.
   
• Compliance, by contrast, concerns the safety and legality of the electrical installation itself and is governed by the Electrical Installation Regulations under occupational health and safety legislation.

That means Eskom's administrative reprieve does not automatically extend to municipalities, nor does it waive the underlying electrical compliance requirements.

‍

“Metros and local authorities have their own microgeneration rules that are completely unaffected by Eskom's administrative reprieve,” says Van Deventer.

‍

There are several practical implications for owners.

• Alterations matter: Adding batteries or panels, replacing an inverter or otherwise modifying an installation may trigger the need for updated certification.
• Documentation is becoming more extensive: Newer installations may require additional technical and maintenance documentation.
• Engineering input may be required: Certain installations may require structural or other specialist sign-off.
• The certificate issuer matters: Owners should ensure the person issuing the CoC is appropriately registered and authorised.

The central message is simple: registration deals with connecting and interacting with the electricity network; compliance deals with whether the installation itself meets the required legal and safety standards.

The transfer risk

‍This distinction becomes particularly important when a property is sold. Solar has added another layer to the documentation and due diligence required during residential property transactions.

Van Deventer says transfer problems often arise not because obtaining a certificate is inherently difficult, but because owners discover compliance shortcomings only after the sale agreement has already been signed.

‍

“They then have to scramble to appoint contractors, get the remedial work completed, and obtain certificates under pressure,” he says. That can introduce an avoidable bottleneck into the transaction.

‍

For sellers, the better approach is therefore to investigate the property's electrical and solar compliance before or when the property is listed, rather than waiting until the conveyancing process is underway.

This is particularly important where the solar installation has evolved over several years. A homeowner may have installed an inverter initially, added panels later and subsequently expanded the battery bank.

The key question then becomes whether the property's compliance documentation accurately reflects the installation that exists today.

The disclosure risk

‍Solar also introduces another potential problem for sellers: mandatory property disclosure.

Electrical defects, disabled safety features and uncertified alterations that materially affect a property cannot simply be ignored because the property is being sold voetstoots. “A voetstoots clause won't protect a seller who knew about a defect and kept quiet,” Van Deventer warns.

That makes disclosure particularly important where a seller knows that a solar installation has been modified, has unresolved faults or does not have the required documentation.

Estate agents and property practitioners therefore also have an important role to play.

Instead of treating solar purely as a marketing feature, “inverter, panels and batteries included”, agents should establish what system is installed, whether it has subsequently been modified and what supporting documentation exists.

A solar installation may add significant appeal and value to a property, but inadequate documentation can turn that selling point into a transaction risk.

The insurance risk

‍The consequences may extend well beyond a delayed transfer.Van Deventer says insurers are increasingly interested in whether solar installations were completed by suitably qualified professionals when assessing claims involving fires, weather damage or theft.

‍

“Without a valid CoC or an ‘as-built’ record, a homeowner could have their entire building insurance claim rejected, not just the claim for the solar panels,” he says. For investors and homeowners, this changes the way solar documentation should be viewed.

‍

A CoC should not simply be regarded as a certificate needed when selling the property. It forms part of the property's broader risk-management record.

Owners should therefore retain invoices, specifications, installer details, technical documentation, maintenance records, engineering approvals where applicable and updated compliance certificates.

The larger and more sophisticated the solar and battery installation, the more important that documentary trail becomes.

The court cases

‍Van Deventer points to several court decisions illustrating the wider legal principles surrounding disclosure, electrical defects and insurance compliance.

1. Odendaal v Ferraris
 The Supreme Court of Appeal decision remains an important reference point concerning voetstoots protection and the concealment of defects. The broader lesson for sellers is that deliberately withholding known material defects can create liability despite contractual protections.

2. Biologicals and Vaccines Institute of Southern Africa v Guardrisk Insurance Company Ltd
 Van Deventer highlights the 2025 High Court judgment in the context of electrical compliance and insurance claims, illustrating why the validity and adequacy of compliance documentation can become important when insurers investigate significant losses.

3. Van Wyk v Lewis
 The case is cited as further reinforcement of the risks surrounding undisclosed alterations and the importance of ensuring that electrical compliance documentation properly corresponds with the installation being sold.

“The pattern is similar in these cases,” says Van Deventer.

‍

“Registration is a conversation with your distributor, whereas compliance is a strict statutory obligation. Only one of them has been relaxed.”

‍

Checklist for sellers and estate agents

‍Property owners should not wait until transfer to discover whether their solar documentation is adequate. Van Deventer recommends addressing the issue much earlier:

1. Check certificates when listing: Identify the electrical, gas, electric-fence and plumbing certificates required for the property.
2. Establish what changed: Determine whether panels, batteries, inverters or other electrical components were altered after the existing CoC was issued.
3. Verify the issuer: Confirm that the electrician responsible for certification is appropriately registered.
4. Get the timing right: Arrange inspections and certification at the appropriate point so documentation remains suitable for transfer.
5. Check the correct distributor: Establish whether the property falls under Eskom or a municipal electricity distributor and confirm the applicable registration requirements.
6. Build a property compliance file: Keep CoCs, invoices, technical data sheets, maintenance manuals, installer records and engineering sign-offs together and readily accessible.

Compliance is becoming part of property due diligence

‍South Africa's rapid adoption of rooftop solar has fundamentally changed what sits behind the electrical infrastructure of a modern home.

What was once a relatively straightforward electrical installation may now incorporate solar generation, battery storage, sophisticated inverters and interaction with the electricity grid. The regulatory and compliance environment is evolving alongside that technology.

For investors, sellers and estate agents, the implication is clear: solar should no longer be viewed simply as an amenity that reduces electricity costs and potentially enhances property value. Its legal, technical and insurance status needs to form part of property due diligence.

Eskom's registration reprieve may have reduced one immediate administrative concern, but it should not create false comfort about the installation itself.

‍

As Van Deventer puts it: “In the meantime, the safest assumption is that registration is paperwork and compliance is the legal safety net.”

‍