GT1

Firstly, as this is my first post since joining the forum a few years ago, a big thank you for all the invaluable info your debates have provided. I ended up here again while doing research to confirm my MVHR design. Most of what I want to say has been said in this thread already - I just want to say it my way! After years of struggling with planning authorities I am finally half way through an extensive bungalow extension/refurb for my parents, not the original plan for my whole family but that's life, compromise had to be made, we keep their draughty old house! The plan is also to divide off a previously built side extension to provide a separate rentable property to help pay back the mortgage quickly. As for the current topic; a term I have not seen mentioned so far, and one which provides the best argument against the thread title, is cost/benefit ratio. Many purchases are unjustified on pure cost alone (House/Car/TV/Weddings/Holidays/Eating out/Drinking/Pets/Kids! etc) but the ultimate goal in life surely must be to live happy and content. In a world that increasingly seems to be run by accountantcy principles, I think the value of the latter is often sadly overlooked. As these will be kept as my own properties but not occupied by me, I will concentrate on the cost/benefit to me regarding my investment. On one hand, I can justify an MVHR system in the house my parents will occupy as it will contribute to keeping the house fresh (I can relate to all of joe90's comments about his parents - and to add: my mother's cooking odours make the whole house unbearable and she often forgets to turn the hood on!). Without this, chances are I will be spending more on a refresh when I eventually get my house back. Also, there is a small possibility I may want to move here after my parents so the personal comfort benefit is coming into play to justify this investment. In the second rentable property, I have opted to splash out on UFH as I believe the general public is now beginning to recognise this as a 'love to have' comfort feature and the benefit to me is a more desirable property. The MVHR would be wasted on this property as I can see no benefit to outweigh the installation/maintenance cost. I don't think the general public are aware of the comfort benefits yet so I don't believe it will affect the value of the property. To sum up, MVHR certainly has undeniable benefits but the ROI is debatable, so if on a tight budget and you worry about your life's pot of cash running out before your end then there are cheaper options to keep you happy. On pure cost/ROI, the OP has made a very good argument, but the title of the thread is very misleading and aggravating to those who are realising it's benefits, it is not a bogus technology which should be dismissed. It's like saying buying Mercedes cars for lifetime cost is bogus because several budget cars will do the same job cheaper, I'm sure there are strong arguments both ways for efficient ROI, but bottom line is: if you can afford it then the feelgood factor from the extra comfort is undeniable. I know a few individuals who, despite having a generous income, constantly debate ROI without giving equal importance to quality of life/environment, all come across as boring miserable people. Whoops! I have a habit of writing too much then editing bits out to make it less of a novel to read. Just realised I need to get ready for work very quickly so posting as is before I lose it all. Sorry