A proposed law introduced in Congress this week aims to require private military housing companies to pay for expenses involving mold, including relocating families when their homes become uninhabitable. But an attorney who practices military law says the legislation lacks any teeth.
The bill has no method of forcing the private companies to pay for the expenses they would be required to cover. Companies that did not pay would most likely force troops and families to file costly federal lawsuits to try to recoup money they are owed, said Sean Timmons, a managing partner at the Tully Rinckey law firm.
“There’s no remedy in this statute other than, yeah, you have the right to seek relief,” Timmons said.
Top Stories This Week
A recent survey found that a total of 844 troops and their families each had to pay an average of $1,680 out of pocket while they were living in privatized military housing to fix a range of problems, including mold issues.
Now a bipartisan group of lawmakers has vowed to do something about it. Introduced on Thursday, the Military Occupancy Living Defense Act, or MOLD ACT, would require privatized military housing companies to “bear full financial responsibility” for third-party mold inspections mandated by the legislation as well as maintenance, mold remediation, property loss, relocating military families when their homes become uninhabitable, and refunding military families forced to move out of uninhabitable homes for payments they’ve made through their Basic Allowance for Housing.
Under the legislation, which was first reported on by Stars and Stripes, the Defense Department would also need to establish standards for “acceptable levels of relative humidity, ventilation, dampness, and water intrusion to be applied at all covered housing.”
‘Bury people alive in paperwork’
But Timmons told Task & Purpose that he is concerned that troops and their families will have to go through so many “bureaucratic obstacles” to get those expenses covered that they will end up having to take privatized military housing companies to court.
“These big companies are going to have attorneys that are going to bury people alive in paperwork,” Timmons said. “So, I just don’t see that being realistic because I don’t see people have the means to go to court to fight these individuals.”
Timmons also said that it would be very expensive for service members to file such lawsuits in federal court, and there is nothing in the MOLD Act that would pay for military families’ legal fees if they win their cases.
“Unless you have that, the statue is not worth the paper it’s written on,” Timmons said, adding that military families would likely spend far more on attorneys fees than the damages to their homes cost to fix.
“What’s the incentive to go to court?” he said. “It’s meaningless.”
A Senate staffer told Task & Purpose that the bill would be enforced by the Defense Department, which could respond to companies that don’t comply by conducting audits and performance reviews and suspending them from being eligible for housing-related bonuses. The Defense Department would also be required to brief Congress on contractors’ compliance.
A Pentagon spokesperson said the Defense Department does not comment on pending legislation.
Would establish standards and a hotline
Heather Hall, the founder of the Military Housing Coalition and a military spouse, said there are positive elements to the MOLD Act. For example, the legislation would require contractors to be certified on recognized industry standards for mold remediation. It would also establish protocols for independent third-party mold inspections and reestablish a 24-hour hotline for tenant complaints.
Still, while the legislation aims to make sure that privatized military housing companies pay for costs involved with mold, it does not mandate that troops and families be reimbursed when they are forced to pay out of pocket for such expenses, including damaged furniture and medical bills, Hall said.
She added that enforcing privatized military housing companies to cover the expenses outlined in the bill could be an issue.
“Without clear concise language, enforcement is difficult,” Hall said.
