Having read the Scottish Government’s new guidance on Awaab’s Law, my first reaction was that they have got the balance right.

There will naturally be a lot of focus on the new timescales, and rightly so. Damp and mould needs to be dealt with quickly. But what I particularly like about the guidance is that it doesn’t make speed the only measure of success. There is a clear emphasis on the quality of the investigation, understanding the cause and making sure the problem doesn’t simply come back.

Our own Patrick McRedmond was involved in the Scottish Government consultation, so we have followed the development of the legislation closely. It is encouraging to see that the final guidance reflects many of the practical conversations the sector has been having.

One area I have written about previously is tenant behaviour.

It can be a difficult subject, but I have always felt we need to be able to talk about it without blame. The guidance handles this particularly well.

It states that landlords “must not make assumptions that reports of damp or mould are caused by the tenant’s actions.”

That is absolutely right. Cooking, showering, washing clothes and simply living in a home all create moisture. A report of mould should never be dismissed with an assumption that a tenant has caused it.

But the guidance also recognises that, where an investigation shows household factors are influencing the conditions, landlords should work collaboratively with the tenant and provide appropriate advice and support.

For me, that is where data can be really powerful.

Good environmental data can help move the conversation away from opinions and assumptions. It can help us understand heating, humidity, ventilation and moisture patterns over time and allow landlords and tenants to look at the same evidence together.

I was therefore pleased to see environmental sensors specifically recognised in the guidance as “a valuable tool for identifying potential risks and prompting investigations.”

Importantly, the guidance is also clear that sensors do not replace investigation. They are another tool to help us understand what is happening in a home.

Perhaps the most important part of the guidance, though, is the focus on root cause.

The Scottish Government states that the purpose of repair work is to ensure “the root cause of the issue is sufficiently tackled.” It goes further and makes clear that a mould wash on its own is unlikely to be an appropriate repair if nothing has been done to prevent the mould returning.

That feels like a significant and very welcome step.

For too long, success in damp and mould cases can sometimes be measured by whether the mould has been removed or a job has been closed. But removing what we can see is very different from understanding why it developed.

Was it ventilation? Heating? Water ingress? Insulation? A cold surface? Moisture generation? Or, as is often the case, a combination of factors?

And once we have carried out the work, there is one more question we should be asking:

Did it actually work?

The guidance says homes should, as far as reasonably practicable, continue to be substantially free from damp and mould, and that where problems reoccur landlords should consider whether the root cause was sufficiently addressed.

That makes validation important.

Sometimes that will be straightforward. In more complex or recurring cases, monitoring conditions before and after an intervention can provide real evidence that the changes made have improved the environment within the home.

Awaab’s Law is rightly about responding faster. But I think the Scottish guidance has recognised something equally important: we also need to respond better.

Investigate properly. Don’t make assumptions. Work with tenants. Find the cause. Fix it properly. And where appropriate, check that the fix has worked.

That is a very positive direction for housing in Scotland.