Legislation without evidential foundation?
As Awaab’s law has been written into statute, it’s worth understanding how laws based on false assumptions may lead to unfounded blame and discrimination.
I can’t begin to think how awful it is to lose a child, but to lose a child to preventable mould tugs at the heartstrings of the nation. We all rightly demand answers. Awaab’s law is portrayed as competent legislation to make things better, but does it?
The main issue with this law is that it has been written on seemingly unsafe assumptions by those trusted and paid to perform competently.
The most significant error appears to be a failure to determine the ACTUAL cause of the mould that tragically resulted in this death. In essence, despite sending in experts, unbelievably, no clear cause was found and therefore, without a cause for the mould being determined, how could it be properly understood or fixed? Despite this, the government, ombudsman and coroner colluded to apportion blame at the landlord’s door and write new laws where blame was not evidentially proven.
Despite failing to find a cause, the coroner determined that lifestyle could not have caused the mould. This determination was based on her own opinion and reference to the ombudsman, yet they both knew the true cause had not been found. Further, the coroner’s findings were contrary to other legal cases where judges had concluded lifestyle had caused mould. Since the coroner failed to identify the actual cause, her assessment was not evidentially based and to me at least, that appears unsafe. I raised this with the chief coroner, but sadly received no response.
Oddly, the ombudsman, who is supposed to be impartial, also failed to insist the cause was evidentially determined. He instead wrote a paper that Mould was not lifestyle; The ombudsman has the opportunity and resource to determine what can cause mould and spread this knowledge, yet he chose to scapegoat landlords and not give equal weighting and understanding to mould growth and spread
Mould spores appear naturally in the environment and will grow with moisture, light, air and the right temperature. It is undeniable that lifestyle has control over all these factors. Therefore, lifestyle choices can not only cause mould, but often do and are probably the main contributor to internal mould. To think drying clothes inside an unheated, unventilated home would not likely cause mould is beyond absurd. Yet the government, the coroner and the ombudsman are in denial.
Nobody wants to see anyone living in mouldy conditions, but scapegoating and blaming landlords isn’t always correct or the best way to help.
There needs to be an evidential acceptance of the origin of mould based on facts and not emotion. If it’s determined that lifestyle can cause mould, we need to ensure these gross injustices cannot happen again. Maybe a public inquiry? In any case, a law should be passed that legislation must be based on proper and defensible evidence rather than emotional reaction and mob rule by decision makers.
In wholly blaming landlords on a lack of causal evidence, this law threatens statutory unjust discrimination.
Perhaps in the first instance, a scientific account of mould growth is produced based on evidence. If lifestyle is seen as a potential cause, then those who have discriminated or made errors need to be called out and held to account, even if they thought they were acting in good faith. It is essential where evidence can be determined future legislation cannot be written without proper and due diligence.
What does the Property118 community think?
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
Evicting a tenant who's already left legally?
Member Since January 2015 - Comments: 1435 - Articles: 1
1:10 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Mould is is caused by damp and condensation and thrives in such conditions.
Damp can occur in homes for a variety of reasons. Irrespective of the type of damp (condensation, penetrating, rising or traumatic) it thrives in such conditions. And excess condensation is caused by lifestyle, anyone, including the government, local authorities and judges, who says differently doesn’t actually understand.
Whilst not all black mould is dangerous or life threatening, Stachybotrys chartarum is sometimes referred to as “toxic black mould”, there’s no clear link to Stachybotrys chartarum mycotoxins and deadly diseases. Breathing them in or touching them may cause symptoms, especially in people with allergies, asthma, and weakened immune systems.
Mould should always be removed at first sight and many tenants don’t, or won’t, do this. It’s basic cleaning as is having windows opened regularly, using lids on saucepans, not taping up air vents, not taking the fuses out of extractor units or not using them.
As part of tenant referencing should landlords now be asking for medical records? If tenant(s) have allergies? For confirmation as to how people cook? Their attitudes to cleaning and opening windows? Can they afford to heat the property adequately?
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
1:54 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Focussing on the PRS..
at the end of the day the obligation is for LL to ensure the property is free of DAMP. That there are no BUILDING defects that are directly contributing to an internal problem whereby mould is the result.
If the source is discounted as building fabric specific issue (ie leaky roof, missing roof tile, rising damp..) then of course the issue is likely due to an internal factor.
If the property was empty, no leaking roof, no rising damp, no structural issue/no fabric defects and heated and ventilated adequately then improbable that mould would be present.
So what is the missing component I wonder…..?
Member Since September 2024 - Comments: 95
2:17 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 03/11/2025 – 13:10
“should landlords now be asking for medical records?”
Only if you want to be hit with a disability discrimination claim.
Member Since September 2024 - Comments: 95
2:25 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Over my life we have lived in, and renovated, a number of old, poor quality homes.
Black mould, caused by condensation, was always initially present, especially since it was difficult to heat these buildings sufficiently.
However, dry-lining, with insulation on external walls, overrun bathroom and kitchen extractors and central heating has nearly always solved these problems. The only time it hasn’t is in one property where my tenants insist on drying clothes indoors, with the door and windows shut. I will be shortly fitting a extractor with a humidistat in this room, which should solve this problem.
Condensation is definitely a lifestyle problem, but it is possible for us to upgrade our properties to cope with this. The only issue therefore is this:
Yes, I can improve my property to solve this, but the rent will be higher, or you can alter your lifestyle and enjoy a cheaper rent.
Legislation is therefore taking away choice, and pushing up people’s rent.
Member Since September 2024 - Comments: 95
2:28 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 03/11/2025 – 13:54
The missing factor?
Insulation, usually.
Member Since August 2017 - Comments: 149
3:21 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
This is just another example of how landlords are guilty until proven innocent.
As Rachel Reeves is now likely to find out, an inadvertent mistake can result in your tenants getting a year living for free at your expense. I hope Reeve’s tenants seek a rent repayment order, then someone in government will get to feel how grossly unjust this system is.
Can you name another industry where producers can be criminally prosecuted when the consumer misuses their products or where consumers can enjoy thousands of pounds of free product simply because the supply inadvertently failed to follow regulations?
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
3:31 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Steve Rose at 14:28
I kinda meant the occupant! This is the only other factor that is brought into play if the property itself is proven free from defects.
On the insulation point though, as it stands the min E EPC applies so if you meet this then you meet the legal requirement so this cannot be used as a point against the LL in such a claim.
Member Since September 2024 - Comments: 95
3:38 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 03/11/2025 – 15:31
I know you did, but as an engineer I was always taught to work on the principle that the end user will be an idiot who will also cut corners.
So it is here. Effectively we will have to design our properties to be able to withstand tenants who dry clothes indoors and cook without lids. That’s fine, but they will have to pay for those improvements.
The most frustrating argument I have had is an electrician who insisted that the extractor fan had to have an accessible isolation switch, but the tenant then uses this to permanently disable the extractor fan.
Member Since September 2024 - Comments: 95
3:40 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 03/11/2025 – 15:31
“if you meet this then you meet the legal requirement so this cannot be used as a point against the LL in such a claim.”
Good luck with that defence.
Under Awaabs Law, if there is mould, you are guilty. No arguments.
Insulation is your friend, not your enemy.
Member Since April 2024 - Comments: 3
3:41 PM, 5th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Installing always on, heat recovery ventilation, over which the tenant has no control, could eliminate the lifestyle cause of mold.