Damp and Mould Claims: Why “Tenant Lifestyle” Is No Longer a Defence 

For years, one phrase has sat at the centre of housing disrepair disputes: 

“It’s due to tenant lifestyle.” 

It has been used to explain away: 

• Condensation 
• Damp 
• Mould growth 

Often without meaningful investigation. 

That position is no longer tenable. 

Following the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould – “It’s Not Lifestyle”, there has been a clear and deliberate shift in how these issues must be understood, assessed, and resolved. 

For claimants, solicitors, and landlords alike, the implications are significant. 

The End of a Long-Standing Narrative 

The Ombudsman’s report was based on extensive casework across the sector and identified a recurring, systemic issue: 

Landlords were too readily attributing damp and mould to residents rather than investigating the underlying causes.  

This “lifestyle” explanation typically included assumptions around: 

• Drying clothes indoors 
• Cooking without ventilation 
• Not opening windows 
• General occupancy patterns 

However, the report found that this approach often led to: 

• Complaints being dismissed or minimised 
• Underlying defects being ignored 
• Problems persisting or worsening over time 

In many cases, the Ombudsman identified maladministration, with landlord responses failing to properly address the issue.  

“It’s Not Lifestyle” — What the Report Actually Says 

At its core, the Ombudsman’s message is clear: 

Landlords must move away from blaming residents and instead take responsibility for resolving damp and mould issues. 

More specifically, the report calls for a shift: 

• From inferring blame → to taking responsibility 
• From reactive responses → to proactive management 
• From complaints handling → to resolution and learning  

Perhaps the most important principle is this: 

Instead of asking how a resident’s lifestyle should change to suit the property, landlords should consider how the property should be adapted to suit normal living.  

Why “Lifestyle” Is No Longer a Valid Default Explanation 

From a surveying and building performance perspective, this shift reflects reality. 

Every occupied property will generate moisture through: 

• Cooking 
• Washing 
• Breathing 
• Daily living 

This is not unusual — it is entirely expected. 

A property must therefore be capable of managing that moisture through: 

• Adequate ventilation 
• Sufficient heating 
• Appropriate insulation 
• Sound building condition 

If it cannot, then the issue lies with the property itself, not the occupant. 

The Impact of Modern Housing and Retrofit 

The Ombudsman report also reflects changes in how housing stock now performs. 

Many properties have undergone upgrades such as: 

• Double glazing 
• External wall insulation 
• Draught-proofing 

While these measures improve energy efficiency, they also: 

• Reduce natural airflow 
• Increase airtightness 
• Trap moisture within the building 

Without proper ventilation design, this creates conditions where condensation and mould become almost unavoidable. 

This is particularly significant in disrepair claims. 

Because it reinforces the principle that: 

Damp and mould are often the result of building performance, not simply how someone lives in the space. 

What Surveyors Must Now Do Differently 

The implications for expert evidence are direct. 

A modern disrepair survey must: 

1. Avoid Assumptions 

Surveyors must not default to “lifestyle” explanations without robust evidence. 

Any conclusion must be supported by: 

• Measured data 
• Observed building condition 
• Ventilation and thermal analysis 

2. Assess the Whole Building 

Damp and mould cannot be assessed in isolation. 

Surveyors must consider: 

• Fabric condition 
• Insulation levels 
• Ventilation systems 
• Heating provision 
• External influences 

This is a whole-property assessment, not a room-by-room guess. 

3. Focus on Building Performance 

The key question is no longer: 

“What is the tenant doing?” 

It is: 

“Is this property capable of supporting normal occupancy without creating unhealthy conditions?” 

If the answer is no, responsibility is likely to sit with the landlord. 

Common Failings Identified by the Ombudsman 

The report highlights several recurring problems across the sector: 

Over-reliance on Residents 

Landlords expecting tenants to manage issues themselves.  

Failure to Take Overall Responsibility 

A lack of ownership in resolving cases.  

Delays and Reactive Repairs 

Issues being addressed only after prolonged complaints. 

Poor Communication 

Residents feeling dismissed or blamed.  

These failings often form the foundation of successful disrepair claims. 

Legal and Practical Consequences 

The shift away from “lifestyle” explanations is not just guidance — it has real legal implications. 

For Claimants 

It means: 

• Damp and mould issues are more likely to be recognised as legitimate 
• Responsibility is less likely to be deflected 
• Claims are better supported by modern expert evidence 

For Solicitors 

It changes how cases must be built: 

• Evidence must focus on property condition and performance 
• Reports relying on lifestyle arguments are increasingly vulnerable 
• Strong causation analysis is now essential 

For Landlords 

It raises the bar significantly: 

• Investigations must be thorough 
• Repairs must address root causes 
• Policies must reflect current expectations 

The Ombudsman has also emphasised the need for a cultural shift across organisations, not just technical fixes.  

The Role of Expert Evidence in This New Landscape 

As disputes become more technically focused, the quality of expert evidence becomes critical. 

A strong disrepair report will: 

• Clearly explain how moisture is generated and retained 
• Identify failures in ventilation or building design 
• Set out practical, effective remedial works 
• Align with Ombudsman guidance and current standards 

A weak report, by contrast, may: 

• Rely on outdated assumptions 
• Fail to establish causation 
• Be challenged or disregarded 

Groveland’s Position 

At Groveland Expert, this shift is fully embedded in how we approach disrepair: 

• We do not rely on “lifestyle” assumptions 
• We assess building performance holistically 
• We produce reports that reflect modern regulatory expectations 
• We maintain independence and technical integrity throughout 

This ensures our evidence stands up — not just in negotiation, but in court. 

Final Thoughts 

The Housing Ombudsman’s message is unambiguous: 

Damp and mould are not simply a lifestyle issue. 

They are: 

• A building issue 
• A management issue 
• A responsibility issue 

For too long, claims have been shaped by assumptions rather than evidence. 

That is no longer acceptable. 

Today, the focus is on: 

• How properties perform 
• Whether they support normal living conditions 
• And whether landlords are taking proper responsibility 

In this environment, the role of the surveyor — and the quality of their analysis — has never been more important.