I have had an MVHR and spray foam insulation in my property since August 2016. To echo the reviews of other satisfied customers I am delighted with the service and installation that the Solarcrest team provided. I am also delighted with the impact on my property both in terms of thermal efficiency ie cost but also comfort both in terms of warmth but also simply knowing that the air in my home is renewed every couple of hours without huge extra cost. At this point I will depart from issues of customer service, price, delivery and returns and refunds to other important matters which may affect future customers choices. Two issues are really bugging me. The first concerns MVHR. I have no doubt that every home in the U.K. should have one and yet there is no pressure from Government or any body else to achieve this either for new properties or retrofit into older properties. (Indeed if you install an MVHR you will be penalised in your EPC but more on that later). Yet I can sit in my home with my MVHR sure and certain that I am breathing fresh filtered air; I am not wasting energy and there is no risk of dangerous mould or damp anywhere in my property. Unfortunately as older properties are very sensibly rendered draughtproof to minimise energy consumption and cost they also become prey to damp issues because fresh air cannot get in and moist air from bathrooms and kitchens (and lack of dpc in some properties) cannot get out. Opening windows defeats totally the investment in eliminating cold draughts. Extraction fans in kitchens and bathrooms without also allowing air in will not work. Extraction fans in kitchens and bathrooms which also allow air in (sometimes with heat exchange) cannot be efficient. Whatever arguments may be used to convince you against MVHR if you can afford it have it and you will never regret it. Now back to the issue with MVHR and the EPC. If you install an MVHR you receive negative points in calculating the EPC value. This was in 2022 sufficient to take a C property down to a D. There was supposed to be a rethink towards the end of 2022 but I have not had time to research the outcome of this. Despite this drawback the MVHR is the right solution and the EPC rules will change. After all the decision to have fresh air and no mould in your home or mine has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with energy efficiency and therefore nothing whatsoever to do with an Energy Performance Certificate. Onto the second issue bugging me:- spray foam insulation. I can echo what Elliot says in his section on this topic. This type of insulation has been used in Canada since 1980 and before. Furthermore it has been used to provide insulation in mobile homes as well as lots of other buildings in temperatures down to -30 degrees centigrade successfully for 40 years. No damp problems. Yes there are two types of spray foam as described on this web site. Only one provides insulation. Yes there are cowboys about buyer beware. If you can afford it and want it spray foam insulation is an excellent investment. So why in December 2021 did the RPSA issue advice to their surveyors to tell property sellers to rip out the spray foam insulation or they will not be able to sell their homes to buyers who need a mortgage? The decision by the RPSA has been all over the media. But the RPSA is not the only Surveyors Association. What does the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors think on this issue? Or any of the others? So the RPSA was persuaded (by the Government amongst others) to withdraw their advice in October 2022 and a ‘group’ are examining evidence prior to issuing replacement guidance for surveyors in the Spring of 2023. Hopefully all surveyors. So far so interesting or indeed disturbing for those about to sell their home with spray foam roof insulation or remortgage in these tough times. And not forgetting the poor souls out of pocket because of a preposterous rule change. But what really bugs me about this sorry affair is what surveyors actually do when they survey a house and how ridiculous the advice postured by the RPSA actually is. In the good old days (and I really am old) the surveyor never went in the roof. (I have no idea which association of surveyors that comment refers to - as long as they had letters after their name I cared not about the letters or the order in which they appeared). Rather he assessed the condition of the roof from the outside. In my survey for my property in 2016 which was carried out by a member of the RICS it clearly states that during the survey the surveyor may only enter the roof space if it is less than 3 metres high and he will only put his head in. No mention of shoulders. The sentence repeated twice in my survey report reads as follows ‘The surveyor may inspect the roof space from the access hatch but will not go into the roof space itself.‘ No it does not say will it says the surveyor may inspect the roof space. I wonder what the RPSA survey reports require of the RPSA surveyors in respect of the roof space? Do they scramble over wooden rafters in expensive leather shoes and smart suits? Methinks not. So how is our smartly suited surveyor going to spot damp rafters by sticking his head and a light source through the access hatch to the loft? Well he isn’t - not an issue for a long debate either. Yet in their recommendation to the surveyors in respect of a roof with spray foam insulation they were instructed to tell the homeowner that the spray foam insulation caused all kinds of problems; should not be there at all; and if they wanted to sell their home they would need to rip it out. When challenged the surveyors were instructed to tell the homeowner that because they could not see the rafters they would have to have a survey costing several hundred pounds to check for damp in the rafters because they could not see the rafters and because the survey might be inconclusive it would be better to rip out the insulation. But in reality no surveyor has ever had to check rafters for damp. Remember it only says they may inspect the roof space. And the myriad of problems supposedly caused by spray foam insulation is at best misinformation and in any case completely wrong. I am personally speechless with anger that the supposed experts leading the RPSA would issue such ridiculous instructions. Further as part of the review the leaders of the RPSA should apologise to all homeowners and reimburse the people who are now out of pocket, preferably from the wage packets of those who wrote and approved the erroneous instructions before resigning. Author Norman Hiscock 17 February 2023