Damp and Mould ...here comes the hysteria

[Odds]

The towel was used as an example. Most, if not all tenants prefer to ignore the need for ventilation. I've seen opening windows taped up to stop air movement, trickle vents not just closed but sealed up. Most people use radiators as a means of drying clothes (Oh for heated airing cupboards in houses - how many have disappeared with modern boilers). How many people realise that paraffin heaters produce water vapour along with CO2 as a product of combustion; Also the Calor 'Heat Cabinets' (mobile gas heaters) - they produce at least 1.5kg of water vapour for every 1kg of gas burnt (This link is in imperial measurements unfortunately).

Really the only solution to these problems is forced, heat exchanging, permanently running ventilation. Permanently running means that the tenants cannot turn the ventilation fan off.

All this information, and more besides, can be made available to them by the landlord upon entering the property agreement.
Wriggle all you like, but the landlord is clearly at fault in this matter, and Swarbrick should resign from RBH.

 

[Justin Passing]

No, insulation is not "the answer". You get condensation mould wherever there's too much humidity, or not enough ventilation, even on party walls. If you have no ventilation, which is the tenant's fault every time, you get condensation; once you have mould it gets worse if you let it.

Yes it should have been clean when they took it on, thereafter it's their responsibility, nobody else's. Yes the landlord could/should have warned them, but once it starts the tenant can see it, then the tenant is wrong to ignore it.
Landlords aren't nannies.
I had a bad tenant, once, 'nuff said.

Put it this way - if you lived in that flat, you wouldn't have let a kid die of the condensation/mould problem, would you?

 

[blup]

Probably North facing uninsulated walls, so a number of factors.

Blup

 

[Deleted member 174758]

All this information, and more besides, can be made available to them by the landlord upon entering the property agreement.
Wriggle all you like, but the landlord is clearly at fault in this matter, and Swarbrick should resign from RBH.

In the neighbouring authorities it is. I don't think Rochdale will be any different.

And just to point out another fact - this developmemt is within walking distance of Rochdale Infirmary Walk In Centre

Yes it should have been clean when they took it QUOTE="Justinon, thereafter it's their responsibility, nobody else's. Yes the landlord could/should have warned them, but once it starts the tenant can see it, then the tenant is wrong to ignore it.
Landlords aren't nannies

It would have been. Councils in this part if the world routinely clean and repaint voids before they are re-let. In some cases they need to be fumigated and decontaminated either because of dirty pets (or actually slovenly pet owners) or druggies. Old carpets and flooring is almost always removed. If there are issues like a ropey kitchen or bathroom, then they are replaced as well. This is why voids tend to remain unoccupied for a while - there is always a backlog of work to be done on them. I've done some of this in the past, and despite the bigotry displayed towards council house tennants, most of the occupied houses I visited weren't too bad. You do get the odd smelly one, the one where you feel like wiping your feet on the way out, but I only recall seeing a few with bad mould - invariably caused by keepimg doors and windows shut all the time and drying clothes over radiators...

 

[JohnD]

Rochdale is cold and very wet in winter, so what's the betting this family wasn't running the central heating, to save money, and that the windows were never opened in winter, nor the mould wiped off.

The pictures suggest something of the sort.

I believe the residents had arrived from Africa, so would have been unfamiliar with cold damp houses. If the mother did not speak English she may not have received advice from a trusted source.

It might be that the quality of the housing was not the only contributing factor to this tragedy.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Inappropriate post removed

Quite frankly it's nothing short of disgusting that you bring Grenfell into this thread. Are you asserting Grenfell wasn't as significant and tragic as reported? I ask cause you use the word hysteria followed by 'here we go again.'

72 innocent people died in that catastrophe, many of them children. The inquiry has concluded various stakeholders (including contractors) left a lot to be desired in their handling of the cladding project, with profit the motive over quality.

People on here will know I am not pro 'let everyone in' when it comes to migration. However the wording of your post is disgusting. Would you still look on it as whipped up hysteria if another high rise fire occurred, with 72 deaths of working and middle class white folk? Or would that be different?

 

[JohnD]

i.e insulated to within an inch of its life, so hardly any air flow.

Insulation does not stop airflow.

 

[Pat ex]

No, insulation is not "the answer". You get condensation mould wherever there's too much humidity, or not enough ventilation, even on party walls. If you have no ventilation, which is the tenant's fault every time, you get condensation; once you have mould it gets worse if you let it.

Agreed it's not 100% the answer, but it goes a heck of a long way to being the answer, and/or being a long way toward reducing the problem.

The Government could make grants available for insulation, which could include landlords, but it prefers to invest in Green energy generation which is probably more profitable for its supporters.

 

[Ihavenojob]

Insulation does not stop airflow.

Did I say it did?

 

[JohnD]

i.e insulated to within an inch of its life, so hardly any air flow.

That is what you said.

And insulation does not stop airflow.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

To the topic, I agree it's often ignorance on the part of the person/people living in the property.

I rent out a flat. First couple of tenants were in it for years, no damp issues ever reported. Young couple moved in. A couple of months later they started to complain of damp/mould in the bathroom. I went to check it out and asked if they were doing basic stuff like opening the window after a bath/shower, wiping down surfaces now and again, that sort of thing.

Long story sort, it came out the girl couldn't stand any sort of cold/draft, so windows were rarely opened. The boy told me this during a chat when she wasn't there. I provided them with a one pager of basic things to do to keep damp/mould at bay. A few weeks later they reported all was okay and thanked me for the hints and tips.

They moved out years back and more recent tenants have not reported any issues. The bathroom is damp/mould free.

Btw I'm not saying tenants are always at fault. There are still sh1tty landlords out there who take the p1ss out of their tenants.

 

[Pat ex]

To the topic, I agree it's often ignorance on the part of the person/people living in the property.

I rent out a flat. First couple of tenants were in it for years, no damp issues ever reported. Young couple moved in. A couple of months later they started to complain of damp/mould in the bathroom. I went to check it out and asked if they were doing basic stuff like opening the window after a bath/shower, wiping down surfaces now and again, that sort of thing.

Long story sort, it came out the girl couldn't stand any sort of cold/draft, so windows were rarely opened. The boy told me this during a chat when she wasn't there. I provided them with a one pager of basic things to do to keep damp/mould at bay. A few weeks later they reported all was okay and thanked me for the hints and tips.

They moved out years back and more recent tenants have not reported any issues. The bathroom is damp/mould free.

Btw I'm not saying tenants are always at fault. There are still sh1tty landlords out there who take the p1ss out of their tenants.

If houses were brought up to modern standards the responsibility for 'correct' behaviour, which was probably not necessary in our parents lifetime, wouldn't be required.

 

[Deleted member 174758]

I believe the residents had arrived from Africa, so would have been unfamiliar with cold damp houses. If the mother did not speak English she may not have received advice from a trusted source.

It might be that the quality of the housing was not the only contributing factor to this tragedy.

There is another factor which nobody will want to discuss; that the family were muslims. In moretraditional muslim societies a man will not take advice or instruction from a woman - and a lot of council housing officers are women. The women will also be "kept", not allowed to go out alone, or get any education (e.g. in speaking English). My own council.has had this issue in the past snd it is a very difficult problem to overcome. Also, despite this family being so close to the hospital there won't always be a translator available. (Incidentally I am very familiar with this hospital having attended both A&E and orthopediac outpatients there)

 

[JohnD]

If houses were brought up to modern standards the responsibility for 'correct' behaviour, which was probably not necessary in our parents lifetime, wouldn't be required.

Houses need ventilation. Especially when water vapour is delivered inside them, from bathrooms and most expecially from drying clothes.

Modern standards do not negate that fact.

 

[Ihavenojob]

That is what you said.

And insulation does not stop airflow.

So you prove you can't read