Board assurance
Boards should not accept “we have a policy” as assurance. The test is whether live and closed cases prove timely action, resident communication and learning.
Questions boards should ask
- How many significant damp and mould cases are open now?
- How many involve children, respiratory illness or other vulnerability?
- How many have breached internal or statutory timeframes?
- Can we reconstruct the full timeline for any serious case?
- How many repeat cases are at the same property?
- What does sensor or property-condition data tell us that repairs data does not?
Better KPIs
| KPI | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Repeat damp cases by property | Shows unresolved root cause and poor closure discipline. |
| Evidence completeness | Tests whether cases can be defended and learned from. |
| Vulnerable household open cases | Prioritises risk to residents, not just assets. |
| Written summaries issued on time | Shows communication discipline. |
| Sensor alerts reviewed | Prevents monitoring data becoming ignored risk. |
Illustrative dashboard indicators
Open
47
Damp/mould hazard cases
Risk
12
Vulnerable households
Evidence
68%
Complete case files
Repeat
9
Repeat property flags
Sources and further reading
- Housing Ombudsman: Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management
Evidence, data and records lessons.
- Regulator of Social Housing: Damp and mould initial findings
Estimates and regulatory lessons.
- GOV.UK: Awaab’s Law timeframes for repairs in the social rented sector
Official phased duties, timescales and environmental monitoring comments.