Damp and Mould ...here comes the hysteria

[noseall]

From a laymans point of view black mould is caused by 'the building' & therefore it must be the 'responsibility' of the buildings owner.

Half correct.

Anyone who has ever tackled the problem of black mould will have learned that it isn't 'the building' that causes the problem, it is down to the way the building is used.

It's down to occupancy. Simple. It's also incredibly idiosyncratic. The reason Rigsby landlords are reluctant to rid their shítholes of the risk of mold, is it costs money.

 

[noseall]

I get involved with properties built from over 100 years ago to ones built a few years ago, and see mould in the new ones as well as the old ones.

It's true that mould is less likely in the older uninsulated draughty houses.

I see mould in all flavour houses in differeing locations. In ALL of them, a colder surface is essential. Ventilation and air movement is important I agree, but you must start with the insulation and preventing surfaces getting cold, or being differentially cooler.

 

[gant]

With combis being the modern way of heating homes out went space created for cws systems. Result cisterns fed off mains cold water, result condensation forming on said cistern, result black mould as demonstrated in the picture of the WC, more so if you think toasters are up for a good 'washing'

 

[^woody^]

Fundamentally, the process of renting is a contact- an agreement, and as such there are rights and obligations for both parties under contract law.

Statute law also allows for some minimum standards for use and habitation of rented properties, but the law does not mean that the landlord is responsible for everything to do with the property or how it is used ... and the consequences of the "misuse" of the property or tenants not doing things which they would be expected to do.

Property can be rented with no fans, no insulation.

 

[^woody^]

As i said, it doesn't say if the problem was already established before the family moved in - and judging by the many reports from other tenants at the site i'd say it was. What say you?

With social housing, normally a property is cleaned to whatever the landlord's stated policy is before letting to a new tenant. And in the absence of any information to the contrary, that is what would be presumed.

But even so, it would be possible to let a property with mould, if the landlord was certain that the cause was not related to the structure and if the incoming tenant agreed to take the property on and deal with the mould.

 

[Justin Passing]

It does SOUND like there's a problem with this estate. It could of course be the quality of the people on that estate.

Could the walls be behaving in an atypical way, or be less insulating than say a 9" solid wall? The blocks look relatively recent.
Tenants report "damp everywhere" and bedding soaked. It certainly seems there's plenty of mould spores about.
R4 said recently that if you kill mould with bleach, you make your own problems worse interms of the bits which float into your lings.

The council "hand out leaflets". I wouldn't mind a bet that they have a history of refurbing a flat to find it's just as bad in a year

 

[Pat ex]

I'll give you a theoretical scenario based on one of my experiences.

Well, if it's based on one of your experiences, how did you deal with it?

I know how I would deal with the problem. How would YOU tackle the problem???

We all deal with whatever life throws at us.
We don't all have to behave the same, and we all have different interpretations of the problem.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Fundamentally, the process of renting is a contact- an agreement, and as such there are rights and obligations for both parties under contract law.

Statute law also allows for some minimum standards for use and habitation of rented properties, but the law does not mean that the landlord is responsible for everything to do with the property or how it is used ... and the consequences of the "misuse" of the property or tenants not doing things which they would be expected to do.

Property can be rented with no fans, no insulation.

You've hit the nail on the head. A tenancy agreement is a formal contract with responsibilities on both parties. However the challenge for landlords (and yes it comes with the territory) is they're not at the property to see how it's being treated day to day. So e.g. and linked to this thread, a tenant might contact a landlord and say 'we've got a wall with damp/mould on it' however said tenant might elect not to tell the landlord they had a mattress up against said wall for x months, impeding ventilation.

See my earlier post about the damp/mould in one of my BTLs. This was directly attributable to the tenants, however people would be quick to jump on the landlord slagging bandwagon and blame the landlord for renting out a damp/mouldy property.

I've currently got a tenant who hasn't paid rent for months. I had challenges getting a heating enginner in to do the annual gas check and the tenant has evidently blocked me (or changed number.) I've also had complaints on 2-3 occasions re rubbish piling up outside causing a health hazard. Having managed to get in once earlier this year for a condition check, the place is a tip. 3 drawer fronts were missing in the kitchen. 'Do you still have them?' I asked. 'Oh don't know' was the reply, followed by a giggle.

etc etc.

However one thing is guaranteed. Should the boiler stop working today, I'm confident they'll get in touch quickly and expect an engineer to attend within 24 hours.

Landlords and letting agents know there are usually two sides to these things, however it seems the majority of the public just like to blame the landlords, with tenants absolved of any responsibility.

 

[Pat ex]

Up here in Scotland our useless SNP and Green coalition are squeezing landlords ever more. The result? More and more are selling up. The result of that? There are very few properties available for people that WANT to rent in the PRS for whatever reason. Yes, believe it or not, for some people (e.g. doctor working in an area for 12 months) renting privately is the ideal choice. Social housing models often don't work for these people.

Is it really a case of the Government squeezing landlords to the extent that it becomes unprofitable?
Or is it more a case of tighter regulation, or the landlords want quicker returns elsewhere?

Another consequence of landlords being squeezed and fewer properties being available is it often drives up the monthly rental charge for properties that are available. Supply and demand. Landlords are not charities, they provide a service.

No-one is denying that, it's the Rigsby landlords (with thanks to Noseall) that are the problem and need tighter regulation.

It makes me laugh when folk spout their anti-landlord rhetoric.

Anti Rigsby landlord rhetoric is deserved. But it isn't aimed at all landlords.

Also makes me laugh when folk say that it's disgusting for landlords to make a profit from property.

I'm pretty sure people don't say that. It is acknowledged that the private sector needs to make some profit.

I wonder if they think the same when they find out their own residential property has increased in value and they can make a profit when selling? MMmmm, probably not.

Which applies equally to rented property.
So as it's an equal on both sides it can be discounted.

Yes some rents are ridiculous e.g. £1800 a month for a cupboard in central London. Yes some landlords take the p1ss and/or are dodgy. However they are a minority and it doesn't represent the entire PRS model in a fair light.

p.s. although not PC to say so these days, tenants can also be dodgy and take the p1ss I'm experiencing that situation now with one of my tenants.

No-one is denying either of your final comments.

 

[Pat ex]

Whilst condensation may be more likely to occur in certain properties, and equally valid counterargument (which is more of a fact than just a proposition) to your assertion is that another occupant in the same property may not experience the same issues. Which indicates that the use of the property, rather than the property itself is a factor, often a significant or only factor.

Generally, it all comes down to whether there are structural, or property related defects which may cause damp and mould- and that is defects not deficiencies. Eg, a broken fan or inoperable window is a defect but lack of a fan or an operable window is a deficiency.

Then there is the overriding obligation, a concept, of a tenant acting in a "tenant-like manner". Using the property and its fittings correctly and cleaning the property is acting in a tenant like manner, and so expected of any tenant.

Then maybe such low quality, poorly constructed, cheaply presented properties are simply not suitable for letting.
Maybe there needs to be a standard of property that is suitable for letting.

 

[Pat ex]

That mould did not occur overnight. It has been allowed to increase and to spread to get into that condition.

There is an expectation that a tenant would not let it get in to such a condition in the first place.

For immigrants that can't speak English the landlord should be expected to go the extra mile to reduce and prevent any further deterioration in the building fabric.
If the person was old, infirm, disabled, etc, then the same applies, the landlord would be expected to go the extra mile, or relocate the tenant into a more suitable property.
In the case in point it was a case of education of the tenants, but that does not seem to have been attempted with any real zeal.

You wouldn't hire out a machine, with defects or deficiencies, without ensuring the user is capable of using the machine, and was aware of the problems. We shouldn't be letting houses without ensuring the tenant is aware of defects or deficiencies, and how avoid them.

 

[Pat ex]

See my earlier post about the damp/mould in one of my BTLs. This was directly attributable to the tenants, however people would be quick to jump on the landlord slagging bandwagon and blame the landlord for renting out a damp/mouldy property.

Would you hire out a vehicle, with know defects or deficiencies, without ensuring the hirer was aware of such problems and how to avoid any issues?
If those defects or deficiencies still resulted in a death, would you expect to be prosecuted?

 

[motorbiking]

The LL is not responsible for the tenants domestic hygiene. The solution could have been purchased from Poundland for less than a 5er.

 

[Ihavenojob]

our royal family,

Who?

 

[Pat ex]

The LL is not responsible for the tenants domestic hygiene. The solution could have been purchased from Poundland for less than a 5er.

The LL should be responsible for ensuring the tenant is aware of any defects or deficiencies in the property, and how to work around them.
Do you think the tenant intentionally caused the death of their son?
Your 5er solution appears to suggest that is what you think.