A fresh Housing Ombudsman case is a useful reminder that damp and mould complaints rarely sit in isolation. Where a property has several hazards at once, landlords need a clear way to join the evidence together, assess risk, and avoid closing a case before the underlying problem has been dealt with.
The Ombudsman said Onward Homes had introduced new processes after a vulnerable family was left living with damp, mould, mites and other hazards for nearly two years. The complaint pre-dated the first phase of Awaab’s Law on damp and mould, but the Ombudsman said the case offers timely learning as the law expands to cover further hazards later this year.
Although the case involved a social landlord, the practical lessons are relevant across rented housing: when several condition issues appear together, landlords should avoid treating each symptom as a separate, low-level repair. Damp, pests, roof defects, guttering problems, insulation issues and health vulnerabilities can interact. A narrow repair response may miss the risk picture that tenants, contractors and inspection records are already showing.
What happened in the case
According to the Ombudsman, the family reported damp, mould and mites multiple times and explained the impact on the children’s physical and mental health. Medical letters and concerns raised by a social worker supported the family’s account.
Surveys later identified structural issues with the roof, guttering and insulation, and found that the household was living with several hazards at the same time. The landlord carried out mould washes and some repairs, but the Ombudsman said it continued treating the mites without identifying the underlying cause, despite their presence being a sign of an unresolved damp problem.
The Ombudsman also noted that there was no formal record showing proper consideration of whether the family should be moved temporarily while works were carried out. Despite recommended repairs, the problems did not improve, and the case was closed without resolution.
For landlords, the warning is not simply “deal with damp faster”. It is that repeated reports, recurring treatments, unresolved contractor findings and household vulnerabilities should trigger escalation rather than routine closure.
Why multiple hazards need a joined-up record
The Ombudsman said Onward Homes has now changed how it responds to damp and mould reports. Its new steps include a formal internal procedure, training for staff, better handling of temporary moves, contractor checklists, senior oversight for unresolved high-risk cases, and a single evidence bundle recording visits, surveys, resident contact and decisions.
That “single evidence bundle” idea is especially useful for private landlords and managing agents. In practice, it means keeping all key evidence in one place: the tenant’s reports, photographs, inspection notes, contractor recommendations, dates of visits, reasons for decisions, follow-up actions, and confirmation that the issue has actually improved.
This matters because damp and mould cases can easily become fragmented. One contractor may inspect a roof, another may treat mould, a letting agent may handle tenant messages, and the landlord may approve works separately. If nobody is looking across the whole record, the same problem can be treated repeatedly without the root cause being fixed.
Here4Landlords has previously covered refreshed damp and mould guidance for landlords. This latest case reinforces the same operational point: records should show not only that a landlord responded, but how the response matched the risk.
What landlords should check now
Landlords and agents may want to review how their repair process handles cases where more than one warning sign appears. Useful checks include:
- whether repeat damp, mould, pest or leak reports are automatically escalated after a set point;
- whether contractor notes are reviewed together rather than filed as separate one-off jobs;
- whether known vulnerabilities in the household affect response times, communication and follow-up;
- whether temporary accommodation or other support is actively considered where significant hazards remain;
- whether cases are only closed after verification, not simply after a visit or treatment; and
- whether tenants are asked to confirm whether conditions have improved after works.
The case also has a wider lesson on pests linked to damp. If mites or similar issues appear alongside mould, condensation or water ingress, it may not be enough to treat the infestation in isolation. Landlords should ask whether the pest problem is a symptom of an unresolved building condition issue.
Awaab’s Law raises the stakes
Awaab’s Law is already changing expectations around damp and mould in social housing, and the Ombudsman explicitly linked this case to the law’s expansion to other hazards. Private rented sector rules are not identical, but the direction of travel is clear: serious hazards, repeat reports and vulnerable households are receiving greater scrutiny.
That makes process discipline important. A landlord who can show prompt inspections, clear evidence, reasoned decisions, completed repairs and proper follow-up is in a stronger position than one relying on scattered emails or memory. Good records do not replace good repairs, but they help ensure the right repairs happen and that problems are not closed too early.
For landlords with older properties, recurring damp or roof problems, or tenants who have raised health concerns, now is a sensible moment to check whether repair records would stand up to scrutiny. If they do not show the full story, the process may need tightening before the next complaint becomes a formal dispute.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Landlords dealing with serious hazards, vulnerable households or disputed repairs should consider appropriate professional advice and refer to official guidance where needed.
