By Richard Blakeway, the Housing Ombudsman

In recent months I’ve been asked whether mould was a ‘grey rhino’ event. In risk management speak, this is the opposite of the ‘black swan’: a visible problem overlooked.

The answer is yes. And faulty roofs, windows, overheating or loss of heating could replace damp and mould as a primary driver of severe maladministration within the next 12 months.

Of course, these repairs could cause mould, but crucially they may also relate to other hazards. Which brings us to phase 2 of Awaab’s Law.

Our latest learning from severe maladministration report considers these other hazards. There’s an elderly woman reporting sewerage leaks 20 times over nine years. A disabled resident without heating and hot water for six years.

Another resident with unsafe drinking water for eight months and someone else was exposed to lead paint. In some cases, residents report living cost pressures caused by higher energy bills.

Most social homes are free of these hazards. But this fact makes the experiences of these residents even more shocking. Stepping back, four themes characterise cases involving hazards:

• Culture and people
• Process and policy
• Systems and data
• Governance and oversight.

Cultural issues must sit behind at least some cases. Excessive time lapsed without the right thing being done or escalations to the right person. Other issues include people stretch, competency and silos at work.

Processes aren’t followed, either because they are unclear, inadequate, lacking quality assurance or yet to embed. Individual circumstances are overlooked, communication haphazard, multiple surveys commissioned without progress being made, works schedules more limited than expert advice proposes, and no evidence of temporary moves being considered. A lack of resources may underpin each.

Policy weaknesses can also lead to the wrong process. I have concerns phase 1 of Awaab’s Law could’ve created some false comfort landlords are prepared.

Many landlords talk confidently of meeting their obligations under the law. What’s this based on? How robust is the data? How has the board scrutinised it?

Where multiple hazards are present in a single home, the assessment will be more complex. Complexity requires clarity and agility in decision-making, often absent in these cases.

System issues include poor data or system integration. This leads to a reliance on workarounds and institutional knowledge. It too can contribute to poor communication.

Which raises governance issues. In some cases, we’ve ordered a root cause analysis. Where we didn’t, what did the board do? Did it challenge the reliability of its data against the reality of some resident experiences? Is the improvement plan on track and producing the results expected? And what about those cultural issues?

This may feel a little bleak. But it’s meant as a reality check. Awaab’s Law is a process not an event and we’re still at the start of it. Phase 2 is a wholly different prospect to what was required last October.

To many landlords’ credit, more innovation and resource is going into those four areas, but this may not be universal or sustained, given other competing pressures. More resources are planned by some landlords specifically for damp and mould, which is positive. But what about other emerging issues?

Many landlords missed the ‘grey rhino’ of damp and mould. We must make sure we don’t do so again with other warning signs.