Final cost way exceeded inital quote.
My experience with this company was disappointing.
The initial quotation appeared very competitive, and based on that pricing we decided to proceed with the installation. However, only after the system had been installed were we informed that significant additional work would be required due to shading on our roof. This included the construction of a separate support structure, resulting in a substantial increase in the overall cost and monthly repayments.
In my view, a thorough site assessment should identify major requirements such as this before installation begins, allowing customers to make a fully informed decision based on the true cost of the project.
The installation itself was completed, but the final solution ended up being far more expensive than the original quotation suggested. I would strongly recommend that prospective customers obtain written confirmation of all potential additional costs and site requirements before committing.
Based on my experience, I would not use this company again.
Helpful (0)
Replies (2)0
Replies (2)
Universal Office Automative Solutions's replyOfficial
05 Jun 2026, 11:25Thank you for your feedback. We are sorry to hear that you feel disappointed with your experience.
We would however like to clarify that the original quotation and agreed installation scope were based on the initial site requirements and agreed panel placement discussed prior to installation.
Following completion of the installation, a request was made to relocate/adjust the system due to shading concerns (Trees that are shading over the Solar Panels), which resulted in additional work outside of the original quoted scope.
The additional structure and associated costs were therefore not part of the initial agreement or quotation, but arose from changes requested after installation had already commenced/completed.
As per our call records and correspondence, these variations and additional costs were discussed.
We always strive to be transparent with our clients and do our best to accommodate changes requested during or after installation. Unfortunately, modifications to the original design or placement can impact final project costs.
We appreciate your business and genuinely wish you well with your system going forward.
We would however like to clarify that the original quotation and agreed installation scope were based on the initial site requirements and agreed panel placement discussed prior to installation.
Following completion of the installation, a request was made to relocate/adjust the system due to shading concerns (Trees that are shading over the Solar Panels), which resulted in additional work outside of the original quoted scope.
The additional structure and associated costs were therefore not part of the initial agreement or quotation, but arose from changes requested after installation had already commenced/completed.
As per our call records and correspondence, these variations and additional costs were discussed.
We always strive to be transparent with our clients and do our best to accommodate changes requested during or after installation. Unfortunately, modifications to the original design or placement can impact final project costs.
We appreciate your business and genuinely wish you well with your system going forward.
Universal Office Automative Solutions's reply05 Jun 2026, 11:25
Official
Thank you for your feedback. We are sorry to hear that you feel disappointed with your experience.
We would however like to clarify that the original quotation and agreed installation scope were based on the initial site requirements and agreed panel placement discussed prior to installation.
Following completion of the installation, a request was made to relocate/adjust the system due to shading concerns (Trees that are shading over the Solar Panels), which resulted in additional work outside of the original quoted scope.
The additional structure and associated costs were therefore not part of the initial agreement or quotation, but arose from changes requested after installation had already commenced/completed.
As per our call records and correspondence, these variations and additional costs were discussed.
We always strive to be transparent with our clients and do our best to accommodate changes requested during or after installation. Unfortunately, modifications to the original design or placement can impact final project costs.
We appreciate your business and genuinely wish you well with your system going forward.
We would however like to clarify that the original quotation and agreed installation scope were based on the initial site requirements and agreed panel placement discussed prior to installation.
Following completion of the installation, a request was made to relocate/adjust the system due to shading concerns (Trees that are shading over the Solar Panels), which resulted in additional work outside of the original quoted scope.
The additional structure and associated costs were therefore not part of the initial agreement or quotation, but arose from changes requested after installation had already commenced/completed.
As per our call records and correspondence, these variations and additional costs were discussed.
We always strive to be transparent with our clients and do our best to accommodate changes requested during or after installation. Unfortunately, modifications to the original design or placement can impact final project costs.
We appreciate your business and genuinely wish you well with your system going forward.
's updateReviewer Update
05 Jun 2026, 12:37Thank you for your response.
I accept that there was an agreed installation scope. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the subsequent costs arose simply because we requested changes after installation.
As customers, we re**** on your expertise to assess the site and recommend a system design that would achieve the expected performance. It is not reasonable to expect customers to identify whether panel placement will be significantly affected by shading or whether additional structures will ultimately be required to make the system viable.
My concern is not that additional work carries additional cost. My concern is that the shading issue and the potential need for a separate support structure were not identified and discussed before installation commenced. Had they been, we would have been able to evaluate the true cost of the project before making a decision.
I agree that the additional costs were discussed once the issue became apparent. However, by that stage the system had already been installed and the practical options available to us were very different from those available before work began.
As stated in my original review, the original installation was completed. My review reflects my genuine experience that the final cost to achieve the desired system performance is substantially higher than the initial quotation suggested. I believe prospective customers should ensure that all site-specific factors, including potential shading concerns, are thoroughly assessed and documented before proceeding.
I accept that there was an agreed installation scope. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the subsequent costs arose simply because we requested changes after installation.
As customers, we re**** on your expertise to assess the site and recommend a system design that would achieve the expected performance. It is not reasonable to expect customers to identify whether panel placement will be significantly affected by shading or whether additional structures will ultimately be required to make the system viable.
My concern is not that additional work carries additional cost. My concern is that the shading issue and the potential need for a separate support structure were not identified and discussed before installation commenced. Had they been, we would have been able to evaluate the true cost of the project before making a decision.
I agree that the additional costs were discussed once the issue became apparent. However, by that stage the system had already been installed and the practical options available to us were very different from those available before work began.
As stated in my original review, the original installation was completed. My review reflects my genuine experience that the final cost to achieve the desired system performance is substantially higher than the initial quotation suggested. I believe prospective customers should ensure that all site-specific factors, including potential shading concerns, are thoroughly assessed and documented before proceeding.
's update05 Jun 2026, 12:37
Reviewer Update
Thank you for your response.
I accept that there was an agreed installation scope. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the subsequent costs arose simply because we requested changes after installation.
As customers, we re**** on your expertise to assess the site and recommend a system design that would achieve the expected performance. It is not reasonable to expect customers to identify whether panel placement will be significantly affected by shading or whether additional structures will ultimately be required to make the system viable.
My concern is not that additional work carries additional cost. My concern is that the shading issue and the potential need for a separate support structure were not identified and discussed before installation commenced. Had they been, we would have been able to evaluate the true cost of the project before making a decision.
I agree that the additional costs were discussed once the issue became apparent. However, by that stage the system had already been installed and the practical options available to us were very different from those available before work began.
As stated in my original review, the original installation was completed. My review reflects my genuine experience that the final cost to achieve the desired system performance is substantially higher than the initial quotation suggested. I believe prospective customers should ensure that all site-specific factors, including potential shading concerns, are thoroughly assessed and documented before proceeding.
I accept that there was an agreed installation scope. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the subsequent costs arose simply because we requested changes after installation.
As customers, we re**** on your expertise to assess the site and recommend a system design that would achieve the expected performance. It is not reasonable to expect customers to identify whether panel placement will be significantly affected by shading or whether additional structures will ultimately be required to make the system viable.
My concern is not that additional work carries additional cost. My concern is that the shading issue and the potential need for a separate support structure were not identified and discussed before installation commenced. Had they been, we would have been able to evaluate the true cost of the project before making a decision.
I agree that the additional costs were discussed once the issue became apparent. However, by that stage the system had already been installed and the practical options available to us were very different from those available before work began.
As stated in my original review, the original installation was completed. My review reflects my genuine experience that the final cost to achieve the desired system performance is substantially higher than the initial quotation suggested. I believe prospective customers should ensure that all site-specific factors, including potential shading concerns, are thoroughly assessed and documented before proceeding.