With the recent publication of the government’s updated guidance on Awaab’s Law, social landlords now have in their possession definitive guidelines for compliance, just days before the first phase of the landmark legislation comes into force.

The comprehensive 40-page document moves beyond general  principles, providing crucial operational detail that should dictate operational implementation.

Phased approach

Awaab’s Law implies a covenant into all social housing tenancy agreements, legally requiring landlords to comply with specific, prescribed requirements. While the existing duty to ensure homes are fit for human habitation and to repair structural defects remains, the new law significantly extends that responsibility to include a rigorous process of investigation and remediation within legally enforceable timeframes.

The new regime will be implemented in a phased approach, as has previously been set out. For now, the sector’s immediate and undivided attention must be on the demands of Phase 1 – focusing on all emergency hazards and all damp and mould hazards.

The core obligations

From 27 October, the moment a social landlord becomes aware of a potential hazard, a strict clock starts ticking. Most elements of this timeline has previously been set out, but the new guidelines provides additional clarification:

1. Investigation: Landlords must both investigate potential emergency hazards and undertake relevant safety works within 24 hours. Landlords must investigate and potential significant hazards within 10 working days of awareness.
2. Communication: A written summary of the investigation’s findings must be provided to the tenant within 3 working days of its conclusion, unless all required works are completed within that period.
3. Remedial work: If a significant hazard is confirmed, relevant safety work must be completed within 5 working days.
4. Preventative measures: Steps to begin supplementary preventative work must be taken within 5 working days, with physical work commencing within 12 weeks and finished within a reasonable period.
5. Alternative accommodation: Should safety work be impossible within the set timeframes, the landlord must secure and fund suitable alternative accommodation for the household.
6. Ongoing engagement: Tenants must be kept informed throughout the entire process, with clear advice on how to remain safe.

We’ve previously noted that the definition of ‘working days’ provides a minor concession, but the tight turnarounds, particularly the 24-hour emergency window, will require robust and responsive operational systems.

Clarifications in the final guidance

The final guidance provides clarity on several points that will be fundamental to effective implementation and legal defence.

‘Emergency’ or ‘significant’?

It is for a landlord to determine whether any particular hazard is an ‘emergency’ or ‘significant’, but in light of the facts of Awaab’s Ishak’s death, it is likely that extensive mould growth will be classed as an emergency.

The guidance states that an emergency hazard is one that, “poses ‘an imminent and significant risk of harm’ to the health or safety of the occupier in the social home.” An ‘imminent and significant risk of harm’ is defined in the regulations as ‘a risk of harm to the occupier’s health or safety that a reasonable lessor with the relevant knowledge would take steps to make safe within 24 hours’.  In other words, emergencies are those which could cause immediate harm to a tenant if not addressed quickly.

By contrast, significant hazards are stated to be those which, “pose a significant risk of harm to the health or safety of an occupier of a social home,” being risks of harm that a reasonable landlord would take steps to make safe as a matter of urgency.

There is a degree of discretion within the guidance and regulations, but the clear message is that all risk should be addressed, with those which are obviously liable to cause immediate harm to be prioritised above all others.

The trigger of “awareness”

The starting pistol for a landlord’s obligations under Awaab’s Law  is the point of “awareness,” being the point in time at which they are made aware and put on notice of a potential hazard. The guidance clarifies that a landlord is deemed aware not only when a tenant reports an issue, but also when a hazard is identified during a routine inspection, or when notified by a contractor, staff member, or regulator.

Notification to a managing agent or contractor is likely to be legally construed as notification to the landlord itself. This makes ironclad internal reporting and escalation protocols with all third-party partners an absolute necessity. The statutory clock imposed by Awaab’s Law starts ticking as soon as the landlord is made aware of the possible hazard.

Right to a renewed investigation

One of the most significant additions is the formal right for tenants to request a ‘renewed investigation.’ If an initial assessment is conducted remotely (such as via video call or photo evidence) and concludes no hazard exists, the tenant can demand an in-person follow-up.

For a significant hazard, this renewed investigation resets the clock and must be completed within 10 working days of the request. This provision prevents remote assessments from becoming a tool for bypassing thorough, physical scrutiny and empowers tenants to ensure proper scrutiny.

The unacceptable lifestyle assumption

The guidance uses forceful and unambiguous language to condemn the attribution of damp and mould to tenant ‘lifestyle.’ It states it is “unacceptable” for landlords to make such assumptions or to withhold investigation or remedial action on this basis.

It emphasises that everyday activities like cooking, bathing, and drying clothes are normal and generate moisture; the landlord’s duty is to address the underlying cause through adequate ventilation and building fabric improvements, not to blame the occupant.

A note on cladding

The guidance explicitly excludes cladding remediation from the scope of Awaab’s Law, classifying it as a complex, long-term project rather than an emergency repair. Fire safety related to cladding remains governed by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Building Safety Act 2022.

However, if a fire safety hazard is reported in a building with cladding issues, the investigation and other immediate safety requirements of Awaab’s Law are still triggered.

The ‘reasonable endeavours’ defence

While the duties are strict, the law provides a defence if a landlord can demonstrate that all “reasonable endeavours” were used to comply, but factors beyond their control prevented it. Examples from the guidance include:

• Inability to gain access despite multiple, documented attempts at different times and via various communication channels.
• Delays in receiving necessary regulatory approvals, provided the application was submitted promptly and correctly.
• An inability to source specialist materials or contractors within the deadline, despite exhaustive efforts.
• A genuine lack of available suitable alternative accommodation in the locality.

The burden of proof for this defence rests entirely on the landlord, making meticulous record-keeping a critical legal safeguard. For example if, despite repeated requests for entry, a tenant refuses to engage with landlord, the landlord should maintain a clear record of the attempts made and responses received.

Ensuring readiness

With implementation imminent, the updatedguideance highlights key areas in which it would be particularly advisable for landlords to conduct a final review:

• Decanting strategy

The duty to provide suitable alternative accommodation will present a major challenge. ‘Suitability’ is subjective, considering space, location, disability needs, and pets. Retaining void properties is impractical, so landlords must have pre-arranged options, such as frameworks with local hotels, agreements with short-term let providers, or partnerships with private landlords. These options all cost however, and with many social landlords operating as not-for-profit, the questions remains – where will this additional funding come from?

• Staff training and cultural change

Frontline staff, particularly in contact centres, are often the first point of contact between a landlord and tenant.  They must be trained to recognise the language of potential hazards, differentiate between emergency and significant repairs, and understand the prohibition on ‘lifestyle’ judgements. Over and beyond training, this may require a fundamental cultural shift towards proactive, empathetic, and non-judgemental engagement, as well as appreciation of potential language barrier to effective reporting.

• Contractor management and integration

Given that contractor awareness triggers the legal clock, landlord-contractor relationships must be strengthened accordingly. It would be advisable to review contracts and, where necessary, update them to explicitly require contractors to immediately report any hazards they encounter and to provide all necessary information for tenant summaries. Landlords remain ultimately responsible for their contractors’ compliance.

• Enforcement, redress, and the wider context

Tenants have a clear pathway to redress through the landlord’s formal complaints procedure, the Housing Ombudsman, and ultimately, the county court for breach of contract. Courts can order specific performance (to do the repairs) and award damages and costs. It is also important to understand that Awaab’s Law sits within a wider regulatory web. It does not replace existing duties under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the Building Safety Act 2022, or the Regulator of Social Housing’s Consumer Standards. Where requirements overlap, landlords must adhere to the shortest applicable timeframe.

The updated guidance on Awaab’s Law marks the beginning of a new, more demanding era for social housing. While the new obligations will undoubtedly strain resources and force difficult, if not almost impossible, prioritisation decisions, they represent a fundamental and necessary step forward. For now, registered provides have less than a year to get used to adhering to Phase 1 requirements, before it steps up a level again to include even more hazards in Phase 2 in 2026.

Bill Dunkerley, associate partner at Pannone Corporate

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.