Damp and Mould: Court Awards Tenant Over £7,300 Against Housing Association

Damp and Mould: Court Awards Tenant Over £7,300 Against Housing Association

A recent housing conditions trial has provided a useful examination of the distinction between traditional disrepair claims under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the newer duty on landlords to ensure properties are fit for human habitation under sections 9A and 10 of the same Act.

In Mr K v Vivid Housing Limited the court was required to determine whether persistent damp and mould affecting a family home over a number of years constituted actionable disrepair, rendered the property unfit for human habitation, or both. The case also considered what amounts to a reasonable response by a landlord when repeated reports of mould continue despite ongoing remedial works.

Background to the Damp and Mould Claim

The claimant, Mr K, was the assured tenant of a property owned by Vivid Housing Limited under a tenancy commencing on 21 August 2020. From the outset of the tenancy, Mr K maintained that the property suffered from significant and recurring damp and mould problems.

The issues were reported in several areas of the property, including:

• A built-in wardrobe in the main bedroom;
• The hallway and front door area;
• Bedroom walls;
• The kitchen near the fridge;
• A bathroom affected by a water leak and resulting water damage.

Over several years, Vivid Housing undertook numerous mould washes and remedial works.

However, Mr K alleged that these interventions failed to address the underlying cause of the problem and that mould repeatedly reappeared.

Proceedings were issued in June 2025 and ultimately proceeded to a Fast Track trial before Deputy District Judge Liebling in October 2026.

The Legal Framework: Disrepair and Fitness for Human Habitation

The case involved two distinct statutory duties.

Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985: Landlord Repairing Obligations

Section 11 implies repairing obligations into residential tenancies and requires landlords to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling as well as installations for water, sanitation, heating and power.

For a successful disrepair claim, a tenant typically must establish:

1. A relevant defect exists.
2. The defect falls within the landlord’s repairing obligations.
3. The landlord had notice of the defect.
4. The landlord failed to remedy it within a reasonable time.
5. The tenant suffered loss as a result.

A key issue in damp and mould litigation is whether the problem arises from actual deterioration to the structure of the property or merely from condensation without structural damage.

Sections 9A and 10 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985: Fitness for Human Habitation

Sections 9A and 10 impose a broader obligation requiring rented properties to be fit for human habitation both at the commencement of the tenancy and throughout its duration.

Unlike section 11, liability under section 9A is not confined to structural disrepair. A property can be unfit because of issues including:

• Damp;
• Poor ventilation;
• Health and safety hazards;
• Conditions creating risks to occupants’ health and wellbeing.

The claimant therefore relied on both statutory regimes.

Key Issues in the Damp and Mould Trial

The parties agreed that the following questions required determination:

1. Whether the alleged defects amounted to actionable disrepair.
2. Whether sufficient notice had been given to the landlord.
3. Whether repairs were completed within a reasonable time.
4. Whether the property was unfit for human habitation.
5. Whether specific performance should be ordered.
6. What damages, if any, should be awarded.

The Tenant’s Case

The tenant (who was the claimant in this case) argued that:

• Damp and mould had been present from the beginning of the tenancy.
• The recurring mould adversely affected both his family life and health.
• His asthma symptoms were aggravated.
• His children were exposed to mould over a prolonged period.
• Repeated mould washes merely treated symptoms rather than causes.
• The persistent mould rendered the property unfit for human habitation.

The claimant’s expert surveyor concluded that significant mould existed throughout the property and that aspects of the condition represented a Category 2 hazard.

The expert considered the defects actionable under section 9A and recommended various remedial works including ventilation improvements.

The claimant sought damages based on a percentage reduction of rent together with an order requiring further works.

The Housing Association’s Defence

Vivid Housing, the defendant in the case, resisted the claim on several grounds.

First, it argued that the mould arose from condensation rather than structural defects and therefore did not fall within the scope of section 11 disrepair. Both experts broadly agreed that condensation was involved.

Second, it contended that the property was not unfit for human habitation and argued that the evidence fell short of demonstrating the level of hazard necessary for a section 9A claim.

Third, Vivid Housing suggested that inadequate heating and ventilation by the tenant may have contributed to the condensation and mould growth.

Finally, it maintained that whenever reports were received, repairs and mould treatment programmes were undertaken within a reasonable period.

Evidence of Persistent Damp and Mould at Trial

A significant feature of the case was the extensive history of reports dating back to 2020.

During cross-examination, Vivid Housing’s own witness accepted:

• Mould in the wardrobe had been reported shortly after the tenancy began.
• Complaints continued through 2021 and 2022.
• The claimant repeatedly advised that mould washes were ineffective.
• Little more than repeated mould treatments occurred for extended periods.
• Additional intervention such as ventilation improvements was not undertaken until more than two years after the original reports.
• The bathroom issues remained unresolved until the expert-recommended works were completed in March 2026.

The court was also presented with evidence that mould continued to reappear in the wardrobe even after the March 2026 works had been completed.

The Court’s Findings on Disrepair and Unfitness

Findings on Section 11 Disrepair

The judge distinguished between the various defects relied upon by the claimant.

Bathroom Leak and Structural Damage

The court found that the bathroom leak had caused water damage requiring structural repair work and therefore fell squarely within section 11.

Vivid Housing had been notified of the issue and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time.

Accordingly, the court held that Vivid Housing was in breach of its section 11 obligations.

Wardrobe Mould and Water Staining: Disrepair Claim Dismissed

However, the court rejected the section 11 claim in respect of the wardrobe area.

Although mould and staining existed, the judge found that the evidence did not establish a defect requiring structural repair in the same way as the bathroom leak. Consequently, this part of the disrepair claim failed.

Finding of Unfitness for Human Habitation

The claimant was more successful under section 9A.

The judge made several important findings:

• Mould had persisted throughout much of the tenancy.
• The mould pre-dated or arose independently of any conduct by the claimant.
• The claimant had occupied the property in a normal domestic manner.
• The landlord had never successfully eliminated the recurring mould problem.
• The mould caused significant concern and inconvenience, particularly given the presence of children in the household.

Importantly, although neither expert could definitively identify the precise mechanism causing the recurring mould, the court concluded that this did not prevent a finding that the property was unfit for human habitation.

The judge held:

• The property was unfit for human habitation under the “risk to health and safety” limb from September 2022 until March 2026.
• The continuing mould in the wardrobe from March 2026 onwards remained a breach of section 9A because of the ongoing inconvenience and discomfort caused by its persistence.

Accordingly, the claimant succeeded on his section 9A claim.

Why No Specific Performance Order Was Made

At trial, the claimant initially sought an order requiring further works.

However, both parties and the judge recognised difficulties in making a sufficiently precise order when the exact cause of the continuing mould remained uncertain and further investigation would be required.

As a result, the application for specific performance was withdrawn and the court dealt only with damages.

Damages and the Part 36 Offer

The judge accepted that the claimant had suffered:

• Stress and anxiety caused by the ongoing conditions;
• Significant inconvenience;
• Loss of enjoyment of the property;
• Concern regarding the health of his family.

The court found that the property had not been wholly unusable, but that the continuing reports and recurring mould justified a substantial reduction in rental value.

Damages were therefore assessed at:

• 25% of rent from September 2022 to March 2026, and
• 5% of rent from March 2026 to the date of trial.

The court awarded:

• Damages: £7,006.37
• Interest: £371.80
• 10% Uplift: £706.64

The claimant had previously made a Part 36 offer of £6,960, which he bettered at trial, creating a 10% uplift on damages and significant costs consequences for the defendant.

Costs were adjourned for later determination if not agreed.

Key Lessons for Landlords and Tenants

This case highlights several important principles:

1. Condensation Mould Can Still Lead to Liability

Even where mould cannot be linked to a clear structural defect, landlords may still face liability under section 9A if conditions make a property unfit for human habitation.

2. Repeated Mould Washes Are Not Always Enough

The court was persuaded by evidence showing years of recurring mould despite repeated treatment. Temporary symptom management will not necessarily discharge a landlord’s statutory obligations where the underlying problem remains unresolved.

3. Section 9A Is Wider Than Section 11

The claimant failed in part of his section 11 claim but nevertheless succeeded overall under section 9A. The case demonstrates the importance of pleading both statutory causes of action where appropriate.

4. Long-Term Recurring Mould Can Constitute Unfitness

The court was particularly influenced by the longevity of the problem, the involvement of children’s living space and the ongoing risk, inconvenience and discomfort caused over several years.

Conclusion: Lessons from the Damp and Mould Judgment

The decision in Mr K v Vivid Housing Limited is a notable example of the growing importance of fitness for human habitation claims in modern housing litigation. While the court drew a relatively narrow line around what constituted actionable disrepair under section 11, it adopted a broader approach under section 9A, finding that years of unresolved mould and damp rendered the property unfit for human habitation.

For social landlords and housing providers, the case serves as a reminder that repeated attendance and cosmetic treatment may not be sufficient where a recurring issue remains unresolved.

For tenants, it demonstrates that even where the underlying cause of mould cannot be definitively identified, a successful claim may still be possible where the evidence establishes persistent conditions creating risk, inconvenience or discomfort.

For both parties, it demonstrates the benefits of an early reasonable Part 36 offer, which if not accepted by the Defendants can and do result in consequences.

Advice on Damp, Mould and Housing Disrepair Claims

If you or anyone you know are experiencing damp, mould or other housing conditions issues in their social housing, our team may be able to help.

Contact our team by submitting your details on our Housing Disrepair Claims page , or by sending us an email ab@phoenixlegalsolicitors.co.uk. Alternatively, speak with us by calling 0151 306 3694.

0151 306 3694 ab@phoenixlegalsolicitors.co.uk Housing Disrepair Claims