Awaab’s Law at one

When we started this series, we looked at why Awaab’s Law was needed and then at what it has meant for landlords trying to turn legislation into day-to-day practice. A year on, the obvious question is whether it is making a difference.

My view is that it has changed things. I am less sure we can yet say it has changed the things that matter most: whether tenants are living in safer homes, getting repairs resolved properly and promptly and whether they feel that their landlord is listening.

One year on: a mixed picture

The early evidence is mixed. The government’s Phase 1 test and learn research, published in July 2026, found that the law was beginning to change behaviour, with greater prioritisation of serious hazards and more senior oversight.

It also found uneven tenant experiences, continuing delays and significant pressure on landlords’ resources. From the discussions I have had with clients and colleagues over the past year, that feels like a fair reflection of where we are. There is progress, but not yet a finished job.

Where failures begin

A case published by the Housing Ombudsman in October 2025, just as Phase 1 came into force, shows both where the sector started and how landlords have responded. It concerned a registered provider of social housing (RP), which failed to accept a resident’s complaint about damp and mould for five months. That caused further problems, including a breakdown in their relationship, and made the damp and mould harder to resolve.

The RP delayed inspecting the home after the issue was first reported and took no interim steps to reduce the risk in the meantime. An inspection was arranged only once the resident escalated the complaint and, even then, the works it identified were not carried out. Staff changes and a delay in paying a contractor’s deposit added to the hold-up.

From complaint handling to legal compliance

This RP has since strengthened its complaints process, bringing oversight into one central team and reviewing complaint trends to shape service improvements. That is the kind of change Awaab’s Law demands and, as a result, the legal clock now starts when the landlord is told about, or becomes aware of, a hazard, not when a job is raised or a complaint escalates. A report that goes unrecognised for five months would now be a breach of the implied terms of the tenancy, which the tenant can enforce in court.

Commentators like me reviewing the first year say much the same: most failings still begin when the report first comes in, and they are triage and evidence problems that more contractor capacity alone will not fix. That said, I am not seeing as many claims brought by tenants where they claim landlords are in breach of Awaab’s Law. I believe that this is because damp and mould issues often require deeper architectural or environmental root-cause analysis.

Responding quickly is not the same as resolving the problem

What interests me is the gap between having a process and getting the right outcome. Landlords may respond quickly, arrange an inspection and start the necessary works within the relevant timescales, but what happens when the cause of damp and mould is not immediately obvious, several contractors need to be involved, or the first repair does not solve the underlying problem? This is where clients have reported that these strict legal deadlines are hard to meet in the reality of maintaining stock.

The government’s research found that some tenants experience prompt, well-managed responses, while others face delays between inspection and remedial work, sometimes stretching over weeks or months. Tenants were also more likely to be frustrated when communication broke down or a case appeared to stall than simply because a repair took time. This research makes it clear that a statutory timetable can drive urgency, but it cannot guarantee that the diagnosis is right, that the necessary specialist is available or that the repair will last.

The contractual and development dimension

My colleagues in our development team have shared their experience of how Awaab’s Law deserves more attention with regard to its contractual dimension. It doesn’t just sit in my housing management practice, and I have seen how it can reach back into development contracts, defects liability provisions, warranties and the allocation of responsibility between a landlord, its contractor and the original developer. If a hazard emerges in a relatively new property, who needs to investigate? Who is responsible for the remedial work? And how quickly can that responsibility be established without delaying action for the tenant?

When responsibility falls between landlord and developer

An example Housing Ombudsman decision, albeit some time before Awaab’s Law, is one which developers should be mindful of, as it demonstrates how the deadlines in Awaab’s Law can impact development agreements.

The case involved an RP resident who reported damp on the wall leading to his balcony, which he thought came from a leak outside. The landlord first told him the property was outside the defects liability period and that he should find his own contractor. Contractors he approached declined to investigate a new build that should have a 10-year guarantee. The landlord then accepted that the problem was likely a defect from the original development and said it would contact the building contractor.

The cause was said to be the absence of a waterproofing layer or damp-proof course beneath the balcony door threshold, which was reported to the developer. The building contractor responded that, as the property was under warranty, a claim would need to go through the NHBC. A damp inspection and a mould wash followed, more than a year after the first reports. Meanwhile, a family member with a young child said she could not live at the property because of the damp. The leak was finally repaired around June 2023.

The Ombudsman found maladministration, ordered compensation and recommended that the landlord review its policies for repairs to new-build properties.

Closing the liability gap

The resident in that case was a leaseholder rather than a tenant covered by Awaab’s Law, but the lesson carries over. Several things could have shortened the process and clarified the liability gap between the developer and the RP.

Other Ombudsman decisions make the same point. In a similar case, an RP said it could not permanently fix damp and mould until building defects were addressed under the NHBC warranty, although it would clean the mould. The Ombudsman accepted that the landlord was pursuing several defects through its claim, but found it still failed to resolve the matter within a reasonable time.

The operational pressure on landlords

There is also a human cost to implementation. Maintenance officers, surveyors and housing teams are being asked to identify risks, assess individual circumstances, keep tenants informed, coordinate works and maintain records that demonstrate compliance. That is a considerable amount of responsibility, particularly where staffing, specialist contractors and IT systems are already under pressure.

Clients have reported that, even with the implementation of dedicated specialist teams, improved case management, new triage processes and dashboards that monitor cases through to resolution, the pressure has not gone away. It has moved to keeping specialist teams, contractors and data systems working at the pace the law now demands, case after case.

Keeping the tenant at the centre

The research suggests that clear communication, visible progress and confidence that the problem will actually be fixed matter enormously to tenants. That sounds obvious, but I have found that it is easily lost when compliance becomes a matter of tracking dates and closing tasks.

I think we can all agree that a tenant should not have to chase repeatedly to find out what an inspection established, what happens next or why the work has not been completed.

Beyond damp and mould

The next phase makes all of this more important. Phase 2 comes into force on 30 November 2026 and will extend the significant hazard requirements beyond damp and mould to include hazards such as excess cold and heat, falls, structural risks, fire and electrical hazards and domestic hygiene.

Many of our clients have called this ‘just a longer list’ for their repair teams to manage, but I think it is more than that, as it includes early recognition of the risks that may involve different expertise, teams and routes to escalation. We advise that, when reports are received, they are escalated promptly and correctly, that the right people are involved from the outset where possible and that cases can be tracked from the first conversation with a tenant through to a lasting solution.

So, is Awaab’s Law working?

I believe that it has clearly sharpened attention, strengthened accountability and pushed landlords to reconsider how serious hazards are managed. However, based on my findings over the past year, it is too early to declare victory when tenants’ experiences remain inconsistent and the next phase is about to widen the challenge.

For me, the measure of success is straightforward. Can a tenant report a serious hazard, understand what is happening and trust that the problem will be resolved, and can landlords deliver that response consistently, without relying on individual heroics or temporary workarounds?

Awaab’s Law has raised the expectation. The year ahead will show whether the sector can meet it.