If they were fixtures, they would be sold with a property and not be under the power company's control.
"The power company has retained title but since 2002 this just means that they have a personal property security interest. Their problem is that once chattels become fixtures, the chattel no longer exists, so the personal property security no longer has anything to which it can attach: instead they are deemed to form part of the land, to be sold with the house and subject to the mortgage, not the power company's security at all.
"We have yet to see a court decide whether solar panels are fixtures, but the principles point strongly in that direction," Allan said.
Pidgeon said there was a lot of case law over the grey area where chattels merged into becoming fixtures, the key principles to apply being the degree of annexation to the property and the size and weight of the objects.
"Traditionally solar panels are usually listed in a sale and purchase agreement as being chattels, whether they are included or excluded from sale. In those cases there doesn't need to be a determination as to whether they are chattels or fixtures as the parties have agreed to treat them a certain way.
"If there was a solar panel installed, belonging to, say, Vector contractually with the vendor, and the sale and purchase agreement made no reference to the solar panel, a purchaser could make an argument that they were a fixture and they got title to them with the property. Vector would be left trying to argue that they were a chattel rather than a fixture.
"As Barry states, we have yet to see the test case as to whether they are a chattel or a fixture, probably partly because they are usually referred to as a chattel in agreements, whether or not that is technically correct."