The Government has confirmed that, subject to parliamentary approval, Phase 1 of Awaab’s Law will come into force on 27 October 2025. Guidance has now also been published, which is intended to provide additional support to landlords to help them achieve and maintain compliance with their new obligations.

Background

It is almost three years since the Coroner issued her Prevention of Future Deaths to the Department for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities at the conclusion of the inquest into the death of Awaab Ishak.

The government of the day responded to that report by tabling amendments to the already existing Social Housing Regulation Bill, inserting an implied covenant requiring lessors to comply with all prescribed requirements applicable to a relevant lease. Whilst landlords have historically only been responsible for damp and mould caused by a structural defect, and ensuring that a property is fit for human habitation, Awaab’s Law serves to extend that duty further by mandating specific actions and responses within specified timescales.

Phase 1

Phase 1 serves to require social housing landlords to investigate concerns of damp and mould, and to attend to emergency repairs. Phase 2, coming into force in 2026, will extend the obligation to include additional hazards, including excess cold and heat, with the inclusion of further hazards (with the exception of over-crowding) being introduced in 2027.

Given the time taken already for Awaab’s Law to finally reach the statute books, this confirmation is to be welcomed but it is hoped that those operating in the market have already addressed their minds to the changes they may need to implement within their businesses going forwards.

The key obligations coming into force in October are:

• investigate any potential emergency hazards and, if the investigation confirms emergency hazards, undertake relevant safety work as soon as reasonably practicable, both within 24 hours of becoming aware of them
• investigate any potential significant hazards within 10 working days of becoming aware of them
• produce a written summary of investigation findings and provide this to the named tenant within 3 working days of the conclusion of the investigation
• undertake relevant safety work within 5 working days of the investigation concluding, if the investigation identifies a significant hazard
• begin, or take steps to begin, any further required works within 5 working days of the investigation concluding, if the investigation identifies a significant or emergency hazard. If steps cannot be taken to begin work in 5 working days this must be done as soon as possible, and work must be physically started within 12 weeks
• satisfactorily complete works within a reasonable time period
• secure the provision of suitable alternative accommodation for the household, at the social landlord’s expense, if relevant safety work cannot be completed within specified timeframes
• keep the named tenant updated throughout the process and provide information on how to keep safe

Whilst the reference to working days allows landlords some breathing space to respond, it could also result in repairs (and potentially avoidable harm) being delayed due to the intervention of a non-working weekend.

Defences

The duties are not absolute and social housing landlords will have a defence if they can show that they have used all ‘reasonable endeavours’ to avoid breaching the requirements of Awaab’s Law. In other words, it will be a defence for landlords to demonstrate that despite them having taken all reasonable steps to comply with the requirements of the regulations, it has simply not been possible for reasons genuinely beyond their control.

Examples provided within the government’s guidance document include:

• The landlord may not be able to complete work within the timeframes because the building is high-risk and building control approval from the Building Safety Regulator is required before starting works to make the property safe. In this case ‘reasonable efforts’ could be making an application to the Building Safety Regulator as soon as reasonably practicable. Likewise, other approvals and permissions might be needed from external bodies, and the landlord should show that they are taking the appropriate steps to obtain these.
• The landlord may not be able to gain access to the property to complete relevant safety works. For example, the landlord may have made multiple attempts to arrange a time to access the property but has been unable to do so within the given timeframes.
• The landlord may have been unable to source specialist contractors or materials within the required timeframes, but has made reasonable efforts to do so.
• The landlord may have made reasonable efforts to secure suitable alternative accommodation, but there may be no suitable properties which are within a reasonable distance of schools/ places of work or in the local area. In this case the landlord could work with the tenant to identify the best option.

If a tenant seeks compensation from a landlord following an alleged breach of Awaab’s Law, the onus will be on the latter to show why the failure was unavoidable. This will clearly be something which will be determined on a case-by-case basis, but at this stage, it is recommended that landlords retain clear, detailed and unambiguous records of all efforts made to achieve compliance.

What can providers do to prepare?

As touched upon above, it is to be hoped that social housing landlords are already well aware of the imminent changes and are ready for 27 October 2025.

If not done so to date, landlords may also want to address their minds to the following:

• Decanting processes: if there is an immediate risk, or other requirement to move tenants whilst works are undertaken, landlords need to have available empty properties into which to move them. This is likely to cause extreme difficulties for many social housing landlords, who have to balance ongoing waiting lists and limited available housing stock and it is unlikely to be practicable to retain empty properties solely as a decanting resource. An option may be for landlords to re-negotiate their contracts with local authorities to ensure that they retain more control over lettings. An alternative solution is paid-for hotel accommodation, but this will only serve to squeeze already stretch budgets, at a time when increased funding streams appear unlikely.

• Stock condition reports: it would be helpful for social landlords to understand where the risks are within their properties, and the nature and form of those risks. For example, it is accepted that contributory factors for damp and mould include structural issues, poor ventilation and over-crowding. All of these issues ought to form part of the stock condition report, and should therefore be monitored on a rolling basis. Damp and mould are largely seasonal issues and this variance in presentation ought to be taken into account when undertaking condition reports.

• Staff knowledge: it will be helpful for providers to understand where and how concerns are likely to enter their business. For example, first notification may be through a customer contact centre, and if so it will be necessary for customer-facing staff to be aware of the potential hazards being reported by tenants, and how they as representatives of the landlord can help identify emergency repairs – to ensure compliance with the relevant timescales. Staff may require training and education in this regard to ensure that they are alive to possible risks. There also needs to be consideration as to how staff engage with customers and the language which they use when discussing issues arising.

• Escalation processes: once a concern has entered into a business, landlords need processes to be able to respond in a timely manner and in compliance with the above timescales. Where works are required, there needs to be available maintenance and repairing resource to respond. Where these resources cannot be sourced internally, it would be prudent to have procedures in place to ensure that third party contractors can be appointed and are ablet o attend. In this case, it would also be beneficial to implement procedures and monitoring relating to the quality of work undertaken by third parties.

• Record-keeping: in light of the reasonable endeavours defence social housing landlords must be able to demonstrate what steps they have taken on becoming aware of a risk, and in responding to it. This will include attempts to engage with tenants, access properties and adherence to timescales. Should a query be later raised in terms that there has been non-compliance by the landlord, it will only help to have access to this information and data in an easily accessible format.

Conclusion

Despite the time taken for Awaab’s law to finally come into force, the direction of travel has been clear for a long time and although the recently issued guidance is to be welcomed, it ought not to come as a complete surprise to social housing providers.

What remains to be seen is how the application of Awaab’s law develops in practice, and specifically the extent and circumstances which will satisfy the reasonable endeavours defence. It is inevitable that case law will develop around this issue, and additional guidance may be required in due course.

Whilst the new obligations are clear, they will undoubtedly create real and practical difficulties for landlords: the resources to respond and comply with the new timescales must be secured. Compliance with Awaab’s Law will be a challenge but must nonetheless be a priority for providers going forwards. This may mean that other aspects of the landlord’s operations have to be de-prioritised by an equivalent amount, which may only serve in the long-term to prejudice those whom Awaab’s Law is designed to protect – the tenants.

Although the media interest surrounding the Awaab Ishak inquest focussed on the presence of damp and mould, there were other matters arising in evidence in that case which have not been touched upon as extensively by the press. That is not to minimise the possible risks that may be associated with extensive exposure to mould, but rather to put in context that there are many other hazards and concerns which can be associated with domestic premises, all of which may require investment and attention from the property owner.

The Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which was already in draft form prior to the Awaab Ishak inquest, was amended in light of the Coroner’s conclusion in that case to include a specific obligation on social housing landlords to investigate and repair, within a specified timescale, “prescribed hazards,“ which were reported from their housing stock

These additional obligations were proposed to form part of tenancy agreements, and were intended to provide tenants with an enhanced course of redress against landlords who were considered to be failing in their maintenance duties.

The Government has now launched a consultation which considers proposals for the full implementation of Awaab’s Law.

What are the proposals?

The consultation offers seven proposals for comment, being:

1. If a registered provider is made aware of a potential hazard in a social home, they must investigate within 14 calendar days to ascertain if there is a hazard.
2. Within 14 calendar days of being made aware that there is a potential hazard in a social home, the registered provider must provide a written summary of findings to the resident that includes details of any hazard identified and (if applicable) next steps, including an anticipated timeline for repair and a schedule of works.

Whilst the consultation makes clear that physical visits to properties may not always be necessary, where remote viewing/ information sharing is possible, this requirement does imply and require a certain level of knowledge by the investigator to understand the potential hazards, and make a determination as to their severity.

3. If the investigation indicates that a reported hazard poses a significant risk to the health or safety of the resident, the registered provider must begin repair works within 7 calendar days of the written summary being issued.

In determining whether a hazard poses a risk to health and safety, the consultation encourages landlords to consider any specific vulnerabilities of residents of which they are aware, with the overall approach being one of proactivity. Supportive medical evidence will not be required to determine the risk.

4. The registered provider must satisfactorily complete repair works within a reasonable time period. The resident should be informed of this time period and their needs should be considered.

The explanatory notes which accompany the consultation detail that specific timescales for completion of works should reflect the nature of the problem, as well as being proportionate to the scale of repair as well as taking into account the needs of the residents.

5. The registered provider must action emergency repairs as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 24 hours.

The explanatory notes confirm that ‘emergency repairs’ are those which present a significant and imminent risk of harm.

6. In the event that the investigation finds a hazard that poses a significant, or a significant and imminent, risk of harm or danger, and the property cannot be made safe within the specified timescales for Awaab’s Law, the registered provider must offer to arrange for the occupant(s) to stay in suitable alternative accommodation until it is safe to return.
7. The registered provider will be expected to keep clear records of all attempts to comply with the proposals, including records of all correspondence with the resident(s) and any contractors. If the registered provider makes all reasonable attempts to comply with the timescales but is unable to for reasons genuinely beyond their control, they will be expected to provide a record of the reasons that prevented them from doing so.

Overview of costs

The Government is unable to estimate the net additional costs of the proposals however they are considered likely to be small, on the basis that aside from specifying the response time, Awaab’s Law goes no further than re-stating landlords existing obligations.

The consultation itself states:

Social landlords already have a responsibility to maintain their homes to meet the Decent Homes Standard… to remedy disrepair, and to maintain homes so that they are fit for human habitation. To be fit for human habitation a home must be safe, healthy and free from things that could cause you or anyone else in your household serious harm. Therefore, the duty to make repairs to reported hazards is not a new burden on landlords, and the costs associated with the investigation and repair timescales are likely to be minimal, as the additional burden is the speed at which repairs need to be responded to, not the repairs themselves.

Familiarisation costs for year one are estimated in the region of £1.6 million, with the costs associated with the provision of a written summary of hazard findings anticipated in the region of £154 million.

The key driver behind the consultation is for social housing landlords to take faster action in responding to hazards within a home that are significantly impacting a resident’s health and safety. The consultation goes on to consider that the remediation of hazards will serve to stop the deterioration of these issues and may even improve mental health and wellbeing, on the basis that, “remedying disrepair in a timely fashion means residents feel their complaints are taken seriously, their pride of place is heightened, and they will feel happier to be at home. These health improvements are likely to result in a reduced burden on the NHS, with fewer housing relating issues resulting in residents requiring medical attention. There are also likely to be wider societal benefits of reducing health and safety hazards in homes, such as reduced instances of lost productivity due to ill health.”

Commentary

Awaab’s Law, and the proposals currently open for consultation, were introduced following the media frenzy flowing from the November 2022 inquest. However, without more long-term investment and increased funding streams, social housing providers are likely to continue to be placed in an impossible position. In the absence of a blank cheque, it is a difficulty that is not easily resolved.

Whilst the objectives are laudable, as the consultation itself accepts, the proposals are not novel in themselves and re-state existing obligations. What is liable to change however is the time within which those activities need to be put in hand. This may present an immediate logistical problem for many, especially smaller organisations which may have fewer/ more limited resources, and fewer bodies on the ground to put in hand the required attendances when required.

On the resources issue, although the government does not anticipate significant costs, those funds still need to be sourced, and any monies incurred as part of the expected ‘familiarisation’ period will not be available for other projects, such as the construction of new build homes, or upgrade of existing stock. Without downplaying the seriousness of health and safety risks, the remediation of issues in one property may result in a net loss for the stock as a whole if funds are not otherwise available – for example, to fund replacement fittings or new build projects.

Awaab’s Law is also restricted to the social housing sector and does not affect private sector landlords. The occurrence of mould – and other residential hazards – is not exclusive to the social housing sector, yet the proposals are likely to result in an imbalance between the private and the social housing sector, with the latter benefitting from generally faster remediation.

Additionally, tenants owe a duty to behave in a ‘tenant-like manner’ during the life of their lease. However, the current proposals risk severing that responsibility and shifting the responsible burden onto already over-stretched and under-funded social landlords and may, at their extreme, require a landlord to repair a hazard regardless of their genesis or the manner in which they have arisen.