Navigating the reality of Awaab's Law: year one in social housing

In our first article, we looked at why Awaab’s Law came into being and the circumstances that made legislative intervention necessary. Almost a year into its operation, the more practical question is: what happens when those legal obligations meet the reality of managing and maintaining social housing?

Well, the early evidence suggests that the answer is complicated.

The government’s independent ‘Test and Learn’ research, based on interviews with 30 social housing tenants and engagement with 35 social landlords, found that Awaab’s Law is beginning to change behaviour across the sector. Serious hazards are receiving greater priority, senior oversight has increased and landlords have introduced new approaches to triage, escalation and case management.

But implementation has not been uniform. One of the most significant changes brought by Awaab’s Law is that a report of a serious hazard is no longer simply another repair request. Once the landlord becomes aware of a qualifying hazard, strict statutory timescales apply and the consequences reach far beyond the legal or compliance team.

A report might initially reach a contact centre, maintenance officer or housing officer. Someone has to identify what has been reported, determine whether it could constitute a relevant hazard, assess urgency and vulnerability, arrange the appropriate inspection and make sure that the case doesn’t become lost between different teams.

The first year has shown just how important that initial triage can be. Housemark’s monitoring found considerable variation between landlords in how emergency hazards were identified and recorded, with evidence that some organisations were still developing systems and processes for capturing Awaab’s Law cases.

This raises a significant practical issue: compliance depends upon getting the initial decision right by categorising the risk into the correct category.

The complex reality of damp and mould

Damp and mould may be caused by various factors, including condensation, rising damp and penetrating damp, and they are rarely easy to repair. While visible mould can be relatively straightforward to address with a mould treatment, the underlying cause often is not. In many situations, damp and mould become recurring problems for both landlords and tenants.

Is there a leak? A defect in the building fabric? Inadequate ventilation? A heating problem? Condensation? Or a combination of factors? The landlord may need a surveyor, specialist contractor or further technical investigation before the appropriate remedial work can be identified, moving the focus from temporary fixes to diagnosing the root of the issue

The British climate, characterised by relatively high humidity and frequent rainfall, presents particular challenges for our older housing stock. Properties built before 1925 often feature solid brick walls that readily absorb external moisture, making permanent eradication exceptionally difficult without major structural upgrades.

Other emergency situations, such as a serious leak or gas-related incident, lend themselves relatively well to a fixed, one-off response in most cases. The government research found that landlords generally regarded these emergency hazards as easier to manage within the statutory framework than damp and mould cases, which demand far more complex diagnosis, coordination and remediation.

This creates an obvious tension. The legislation requires prompt action, but good housing management requires the ‘right’ action, and those two things will not always be the same.

What is the tenant’s experience?

Interestingly, the early evidence suggests that tenants don’t necessarily judge their landlord solely by whether a deadline has been met. They care about something more fundamental: is anything actually being done?

The government research found that tenants were often prepared to tolerate some delay where there was visible progress, credible communication and confidence that the underlying problem would be resolved. Dissatisfaction was particularly high where cases stalled, appointments were missed, communication broke down or an initial response failed to produce a lasting solution.

That is an important distinction. A landlord can technically comply with a deadline and still leave a tenant dissatisfied. Conversely, a tenant may accept that a complex repair will take time if they understand why, know who is dealing with it and can see that progress is being made.

In that sense, Awaab’s Law has introduced not just a statutory timetable, but a higher standard of accountability, ownership and communication.

The pressure behind the scenes

This reveals another side to the story. Landlords have reported severe pressures around workforce capacity, access to specialist contractors, IT systems, finances and the need to adapt existing operational workflows.

Housemark’s findings are revealing here. By May 2026, more than 80% of surveyed landlords said they had invested in the skills and capacity required to deliver Awaab’s Law, and 73% considered that their processes communicated case details to tenants effectively. Yet only just over 57% agreed that their IT systems could effectively collect and report Awaab’s Law information.

That suggests the sector’s people and processes are moving faster than its technology. It also illustrates why implementation can’t be viewed simply as a question of willingness. It’s a question of whether landlords have the systems and resources to deliver consistent results.

Looking ahead

The first year has raised some bigger questions. Has Awaab’s Law resulted in faster and more effective intervention? Has it improved the experience of tenants living with serious hazards? Has it driven landlords to address the root causes of problems instead of just applying temporary fixes? Has the additional pressure on maintenance teams and contractors been manageable? And, most importantly, are tenants actually experiencing safer homes as a result?

The first year provides some encouraging signs, but also clear reasons for caution. The government has described the early benefits as uneven and fragile, with capacity pressures, uncertainty around guidance and low tenant awareness limiting the legislation’s full effectiveness.

That makes the first year less of a final conclusion and more of a test. The real question is what has changed for the people at the centre of the legislation: the tenant living in the home and the housing professional responsible for making it safe. That is where we turn in our final article.