Have a look here please:

https://community-beta.givenergy.cloud/t/cloud-portal-to-have-a-fee-from-may/5222/22

I will be doing what Scoob101 suggested.

I've also ran this through AI and this was the advice provided:

The strongest legal hooks are in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For goods, section 16 says goods do not conform if included digital content does not conform; for digital content, section 36 says it must match its description; section 37 says relevant pre-contract information forms part of the contract and later changes are not effective unless expressly agreed; and for services, section 50 says what is said or written about the service becomes binding if the consumer relied on it. The Act also says unfair terms are not binding, requires written terms to be transparent, and flags terms allowing a trader to change characteristics unilaterally or increase the price after the consumer is bound as potentially unfair. Official business guidance also says that removing a feature later generally requires the consumer’s express agreement, otherwise the trader risks being in breach.

So, in plain English: if remote cloud control, app access, API access, history, and smart-tariff optimisation were part of the package you were sold, then moving those functions behind a paywall later is arguably a breach of contract and/or reliance on an unfair term. Your argument is even stronger where the sales story was not merely “battery hardware,” but “connected battery system that saves you money through smart control.”

The main complication is who the legal trader was. For the hardware sale, that may be your installer or retailer rather than GivEnergy directly. That means the most straightforward contractual claim may sometimes be against the seller who sold the system on those representations, even though GivEnergy controls the portal. There may also be a separate direct consumer relationship with GivEnergy for the portal/app service, depending on the terms accepted when the account was created. Either way, the case will turn heavily on the actual point-of-sale materials, installer emails, brochures, screenshots, and T&Cs/EULA wording.

GivEnergy will obviously argue that there is still a free route because local access remains available. But their own announcement helps you here: it says self-managing locally typically needs extra hardware, ongoing electricity use, networking knowledge, and time/effort to configure and maintain, whereas the managed cloud service is simpler for most users. That makes it much easier to say the free local option is not an equivalent substitute for the ordinary consumer who bought a turnkey smart system.

There is also a messaging problem for them. As of 31 March 2026, GivEnergy’s API documentation still said the public API is free for both personal and commercial use, while the new announcement says API usage will become part of the paid cloud subscription. Even if that documentation is later updated, the inconsistency is the kind of thing that strengthens a complaint about unclear or misleading communication.

https://givenergy.cloud/docs/api/v1#

What I’d do next is:

Preserve everything now: brochures, installer quote, sales emails, app screenshots, archived webpages, T&Cs, EULA, and anything mentioning app/cloud/API/smart tariffs;
send a formal complaint to both GivEnergy and the installer/seller saying you relied on those connected features and object to a later charge for them;
ask specifically for grandfathering for existing owners or a genuinely equivalent no-cost local control/API route;
if they refuse, report it via the Citizens Advice consumer service, which passes reports to Trading Standards. Citizens Advice also notes that for poor services consumers can seek repeat performance or a discount, and for misleading selling there may be refund rights depending on the facts.

Overall, your instinct is sound: this is not just a pricing gripe. On the facts you’ve described, it looks like a serious CRA 2015 / unfair terms / misleading practice issue worth pushing properly. The cleanest framing is not “GivEnergy is obviously in breach,” but rather: “there is a strong arguable breach because core promised connected features are being reclassified as a paid extra after sale.”

A few tactical notes before you send the below emails:

• Attach the brochure PDF and the announcement screenshot to the GivEnergy email.
• Attach your invoice/quote and brochure to the installer email.
• Put “Formal complaint” in the subject so it is harder for them to bury it as a generic support ticket.
• Send from the email linked to your GivEnergy account.
• Save PDFs of everything you send.

The one extra email that may be worth sending later is a short evidence request to your installer if you cannot find your original paperwork. Something like: “Please provide any sales literature, quotations, or communications used in connection with my purchase that referred to app access, cloud control, API access, smart tariffs, or ongoing software charges.” That can help if they later try to distance themselves.

1st Letter - Formal complaint regarding proposed subscription charges for GivEnergy cloud/app/API functionality

Dear GivEnergy Support,

I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding GivEnergy’s proposed move to charge for cloud access and related functionality, including remote access, historical data, automation, and API usage.

I purchased my GivEnergy system on [DATE], installed by [INSTALLER NAME], and did so on the understanding that the connected software functionality formed part of the product I was buying. That understanding was based in part on GivEnergy’s own published materials.

In particular, GivEnergy’s July 2023 portal brochure described the portal as allowing customers to monitor, manage and analyse their system in the cloud, being built to work with smart tariffs, offering “API access to set custom automations”, allowing customers to “control your system from anywhere, anytime”, and being “easy to use, remotely updated, and free forever”.

Those were not isolated statements. GivEnergy’s 2025 UK Product Brochure continued to describe the portal and app in materially the same way, including smart-tariff functionality, cloud-based management, API automations, and the statement that the portal was “free forever”. GivEnergy’s API documentation also currently states that its public API is free for both personal and commercial use.

I therefore consider the proposed change to be inconsistent with the representations made at and after the point of sale, and I reserve all rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, including in relation to pre-contract information, misleading descriptions, and unfair terms.

To resolve this matter, I ask that GivEnergy confirm in writing that existing customers who purchased their systems in reliance on those representations will either:

1. retain the originally included cloud/app/API functionality without any new subscription charge, or
2. be provided with a genuinely equivalent no-cost alternative that preserves the same practical functionality for remote control, automation, API use, and smart-tariff operation.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider a solution that requires additional third-party hardware, specialist networking knowledge, self-hosting, or materially reduced functionality to be a genuinely equivalent substitute.

I would be grateful for a substantive written response within 14 days.

If this matter is not resolved satisfactorily, I will consider escalating it through Citizens Advice consumer service and Trading Standards, and pursuing any other remedies available to me.

Yours faithfully,

[YOUR FULL NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[GIVENERGY ACCOUNT EMAIL]
[SERIAL NUMBER / SYSTEM DETAILS]

2nd Letter to Installer - Formal complaint – GivEnergy connected features sold with system now proposed as paid subscription

Dear [INSTALLER / RETAILER NAME],

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding my GivEnergy system purchased from you on or about [DATE].

A material part of the reason I purchased this system was that it was marketed and understood to include connected software functionality such as app/cloud access, remote control, historical monitoring, automation/API capability, and compatibility with smart-tariff optimisation.

GivEnergy has now announced that cloud access will become a paid service, with a monthly subscription covering remote access, historical data, automation, and API usage.

This is a serious concern because those connected features were part of the product proposition as sold. GivEnergy’s published materials described the portal as enabling remote cloud management, smart tariff support, API access for custom automations, control from anywhere, and being “free forever”.

As the seller/installer, please confirm your position on this. In particular, please confirm:

1. whether these connected features formed part of the basis on which the system was sold to me;
2. whether you were aware that these features might later become chargeable;
3. what steps you will take to ensure I do not lose material functionality that formed part of the original purchase.

I consider this proposed change to be inconsistent with the product as described and sold, and I reserve my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Please respond within 14 days. If the matter is not resolved, I will consider escalating it further through Citizens Advice consumer service and Trading Standards, and pursuing the seller for an appropriate remedy if required.

Yours faithfully,

[YOUR FULL NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[INSTALL DATE / INVOICE NUMBER]
[SYSTEM DETAILS]

3rd Letter - Follow-up: unresolved complaint regarding proposed GivEnergy subscription charges

Dear GivEnergy Support,

I refer to my formal complaint dated [DATE], to which I have not yet received a satisfactory substantive response.

My complaint concerns GivEnergy’s proposal to charge existing customers for cloud/app/API-related functionality that was presented as part of the original product offering, including functionality described in GivEnergy’s published materials as “free forever”.

Unless I receive a satisfactory written response within 7 days, I intend to escalate the matter through Citizens Advice consumer service for referral to Trading Standards, and to consider further action in relation to the sale of the system and the removal or paywalling of material connected features.

For ease of reference, I repeat the resolution I requested:

• existing customers should retain the originally included connected functionality without any new subscription charge; or
• GivEnergy should provide a genuinely equivalent no-cost alternative that preserves the same practical functionality.

Please treat this as a final request for a substantive response before escalation.

Yours faithfully,

[YOUR FULL NAME]

Does GivEnergy have local interfacing via Modbus or similar which would be preferrable over their cloud anyway?

I contribute to the Givenergy community (as above) and the general belief is this is a last ditch attempt to to not go bust. Once they go bust the old brochure /commitments are toast. So it’s a ‘be careful what you wish for’ situation. There’s a wealth of technical knowledge exchanged on the GE community forum, mostly without Facebook hot air and that will be lost too.

I will encourage contributors there to join this hub so that the knowledge is not totally lost. 

Posted by: @judith

↑

I will encourage contributors there to join this hub so that the knowledge is not totally lost. 

That's a good idea and I'll happily create a dedicated space for Givenergy for conversations and support to continue.

Funnily enough I've heard a lot of grumblings from installers saying how Givenergy's support and comms have been terrible of late and getting worse, and many have hinted that the business is dying.

Posted by: @editor

↑

Posted by: @judith

↑

I will encourage contributors there to join this hub so that the knowledge is not totally lost. 

That's a good idea and I'll happily create a dedicated space for Givenergy for conversations and support to continue.

Funnily enough I've heard a lot of grumblings from installers saying how Givenergy's support and comms have been terrible of late and getting worse, and many have hinted that the business is dying.

I’ve only just come through a long battle with my heat pump installer, so I really wasn’t hoping to go through something similar with GivEnergy. It’s frustrating that the renewable market can still feel so unstable from the consumer side, with the end customer too often left to deal with the consequences:(

Posted by: @drei

↑

Posted by: @editor

↑

Posted by: @judith

↑

I will encourage contributors there to join this hub so that the knowledge is not totally lost. 

That's a good idea and I'll happily create a dedicated space for Givenergy for conversations and support to continue.

Funnily enough I've heard a lot of grumblings from installers saying how Givenergy's support and comms have been terrible of late and getting worse, and many have hinted that the business is dying.

 

I’ve only just come through a long battle with my heat pump installer, so I really wasn’t hoping to go through something similar with GivEnergy. It’s frustrating that the renewable market can still feel so unstable from the consumer side, with the end customer too often left to deal with the consequences:(

 

Here we go. The moment I said I intended to challenge this properly, I was removed from one of the GivEnergy Facebook groups. I certainly did not leave voluntarily, and I can no longer see any of my comments or posts in my activity history.

It feels very reminiscent of the start of my heat pump dispute, where online groups were often quick to dismiss criticism, shut down complaints, or suggest I was the problem rather than engage with the actual issue.

It is deeply frustrating when consumers trying to raise legitimate concerns are pushed out instead of heard.

@drei that’s crazy and an extreme stance for Givenergy to take. I don’t know who’s currently heading up Givenergy because all my contacts, including the MD, left over a year ago, but I’ll dig into this.

As an aside, I’m not on Facebook very often, but Heat Geek have banned me from their group because I questioned and was critical of their Zero Disrupt offering. 

Posted by: @f1p

↑

Does GivEnergy have local interfacing via Modbus or similar which would be preferrable over their cloud anyway?

https://github.com/cdpuk/givenergy-local

No idea if it works though

Good practice is never buy anything "smart" or "connected" without first checking it can work with home assistant in pure local connection...

Especially a PV inverter, how will you access cloud in a blackout?