Your wins: Solar Zero calls off debt collector and gives our member a refund instead

Pedro Rozas was put through to consumer adviser Paul Doocey when he contacted our Consumer Advice Line for help. He's now calling him “Saint Paul” after Paul contacted Solar Zero asking them to review their dealings with Mr Rozas. 

“I put my trust in him and he did it in just one week. It was like he had a magic wand. I couldn’t believe it,” Mr Rozas said.

There was no magic wand, but rather an email to Solar Zero from Paul that said “we are sufficiently concerned with the way he has been treated that we think something has to be done".  

Mr Rozas had a Solar Zero system installed on his Mangere home in 2017, following an assessment where the roof was deemed ideal. Not long after, the roof began to leak, and the system was removed so the roof could be replaced. The roof would have needed replacing soon regardless, but the roofing contractor described Solar Zero’s assessment of its suitability as “negligent”.

Mr Rozas has kept paying off the Solar Zero system monthly since 2019, despite it being removed and never re-installed. He said he kept paying because he believed “a contract is a contract and I thought it was my duty to keep my word and keep paying”.

He asked for our help when debt collectors, acting on Solar Zero’s behalf, contacted him about other costs, including removing the system, despite saying in 2019 they would waive that cost as a "gesture of goodwill”. They also wanted to charge a “lost stock” fee, which Paul told them wasn’t fair as they had taken the system away. 

After Mr Rozas contacted us, Paul went through the correspondence he’d received from Solar Zero's customer service over the years and said it was "poor at best”.  

A few days after Paul contacted Solar Zero, Mr Rozas was told the debt collection process would be halted and he'd be refunded the $3,900 he'd paid over the years. 

Solar Zero's head of customer experience operations Claire Thomas acknowledged the company had got it wrong. 

“It's clear on review that there's been poor communication at our end and some confusion at Mr Rozas' end, that ultimately caused him undue stress. We're pleased that Mr Rozas is happy with the outcome, and we've tightened up some processes to ensure Mr Rozas' specific situation won't be replicated.”