Regulator report “Mould – It’s not Lifestyle”?

Reply to the comment left by Paul Smith at 08/02/2025 - 17:01
What I think is that the report sponsored by Michael Gove, to which I provided a link in my first comment is actually quite balanced once you get into the detail.

The housing ombudsman's report was a response to the scandalous and irresponsible way in which social housing providers had habitually ignored tenants' concerns and attributed all complaints of damp and mould to lifestyle without any investigation to establish the true cause.

Awaab's Law is being extended to the PRS and rightly so but even without that, any landlord who fails to address concerns about mould is doing no service to himself or the PRS in general.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 08/02/2025 - 17:21
Hi Seething, perhaps I am more seething than you :-).

I think you are right the publication may be sensible but sadly the ombudsman doesn't appear to have followed it's own advice in Awaab's case as the actual cause of the mould wasn't determined. They did say Yes the kitchen extractor was underpowered but no evidential data was published or even whether the extractor was connected or in use, no information on heating use, no information on heating costs? You may find it interesting to read the full evidence around Awaab and then reach you own considered conclusion.

Were you aware the family had disengaged from contact with the housing provider for a long period, although I understand they asked for a move of property and engaged a solicitor to help with that. I am not sure there were repeated complaints of mould?

The actual cause of the mould was never determined?

Were you aware Awaab's death was caused by a heart attack a day after he was discharged from hospital with suspected croup? Back to his mould infested home which the NHS may have been aware of?

Are you aware many flats in Awaab's block in Rochdale were mould free. Would you not want to understand why some were mouldy and some were not? It seems there may have been an issue but again with other flats but this was not published. Perhaps the ones that were mould free should also have been considered before berating the supplier?

In hindsight, it is easy to add more environmental.protection measures to a building and allocate blame.

I suggest you read the coroners report if you are truly interested as all the evidence. I am sure the coroner did her best but I am not sure the conclusions were just another corner may have reached a different conclusion, particularly in Australia where lifestyle would be considered yet I the UK information was it shouldn't be. Having the ombudsman telling you lifestyle is not allowable is an issue?

Believe it or not I am a really caring PRS landlord and some social housing providers have taken on some of my really vulnerable but unmanageable tenants where I did my absolute best and was suffering psychological because of the challenge. I owe some providers a great debt of gratitude.

Are you sure your assumptions on social housing are correct.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Smith at 08/02/2025 - 21:39
I don't really understand the point you are making.

The government position is clear, Awaab's law lays down strict response times which will soon be applied to the PRS. Private landlords already have to investigate and deal with reports of damp and mould, the difference will be that the current guidance and recommendations will become statutory requirements.

Whether the coroner's findings were accurate is irrelevant and nothing will be achieved by re-opening the debate about what happened in that tragic case.

Maybe I have a jaundiced perception of social housing providers (Local Authorities and Housing Associations) and I accept that it is unfair to tar them all with the same brush, but similar attitudes were uncovered in the aftermath of Grenfell Tower. It is generally accepted that in both cases, Awaab and Grenfell there were catastrophic failures by the landlords.

You complain about the Housing Ombudsman (you also refer to him as the Housing Regulator, not sure why) condemning landlords but when he speaks of landlords he is referring to Local Authorities and Housing Associations rather than Private Landlords.

On the subject of tenants' contribution to causing damp and mould, I was interested to read on Landlord Today that Ben Twomey of Generation Rent says tenants being unable to afford to heat their homes adequately causes them to suffer ill health, damp and mould. Even a strong advocate for tenants recognises that heating plays a part. Of course he was laying the blame at the door of private landlords who have not brought their properties up to EPC C. Understandably this subject has received far more media and government attention since heating costs have risen so far so fast over the last few years.

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 10/02/2025 - 09:44
On the subject of damp and mould I love the way that Ben Twomey likes to have it every which way when it suits him.
How can they blame landlords for damp and mould when they do not put the heating on in cold weather.
I have visited one house with my builder on 2 occassions in the past two weeks and there was no heating on.
One guy is still a student but the other three have well above average incomes, employed in the techology sector.
Yet we get the blame!

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 08/02/2025 - 22:59
Hi Seething, the point I am trying to make is when people make mistakes who influence regulation this can lead to bad regulation. This will impose costs and inefficiency on everyone and ultimately PRS and filter down to rents.

The myriad of reports you reference are still not that helpful or concise, but keep lots of people in work?

This exceptional case following the tragic death of an innocent child has had an emotive and targeted response which whilst the ombudsman is directing towards social landlords is felt across our industry.

The coroner failed to identify the cause of the mould even though after the even there was unlimited opportunity. The coroner reached conclusions about the family painting over the mould when this was found to contradict the recent evidence where no overpainting had occurred for a long period. In essence advice was not being followed and the family did not appear to re-engage with the provider.

The coroner found no excessive lifestyle causes and discounted these from creating excessive mould. This assumption also appears unsafe?

If the coroner was an experienced landlord she may know that drying clothes in an inadequately heater unvented room will cause awful mould. The coroner may feel drying clothes is part of normal lifestyle but there are different ways of doing this and some will cause mould risks. To deny drying clothes in this manner could ever cause dangerous mould would be like claiming an arsonist could not start a fire with a box of matches? We don't know what went on in the flat but we do know ventilation was limited. We have no comparisons of heating use of other flats or how effective the extractor fan actually was in the bathroom. I don't believe studies were taken to determine why many flats in the building were mould free or links to identify common causes. So many lessons could have been learned?

This flat was incredibly mouldy and the family appointed solicitors who were involved trying to sue the provider who hadn't fixed the mould. Although it appears they had not received further complaints from the family. Oddly it appears the solicitors didn't know the cause of the mould either but were pursuing the case, suggesting the presence of mould appears sufficient for a claim? There was little information on communications with the solicitors which could have also been relevant.

The point is blame is being put against landlords when generally education could be being given to prevent much mould and avoid cases reaching the ombudsman due to tenant behaviour. The current documentation lacks clarity about tenants responsibilities and what that means to maintain a safe house environment.

Why not have a checklist of basic responsibilities of what causes mould and ask tenants to comply - give specific examples of the highest risks.

In summary bad coroner decisions can filter through poor legislation, inefficiency and higher costs for everyone.

Identifying what is wrong and fixing it early is the the key for all issues, but for mould the ombudsman should make clear the responsibilities of tenants in an easy to see format to avoid claims that he subsequently dismisses (Possibly up to 50%). The unhelpful conclusions from the coroner suggest mould cannot be caused by normal lifestyle and this has been wrongly seized upon? Perhaps you thing it would serve the public well to properly educate on sound principles?

So whilst a huge amount of work has been done, it is always better to reach the right conclusions and advice from the onset. I do not believe we are near that point at present and the waves the ombudsman has created have incited division.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Smith at 10/02/2025 - 13:06
Paul, I have only referenced one report, the document issued by Michael Gove's department. This contains all the analysis and guidance that you are advocating.

I do not understand why you place such store by reports from the ombudsman, whose remit is principally to deal with social housing complaints, and the coroner whose purpose is to establish the cause of death and make recommendations based on concerns arising from the evidence given at the inquest.