Are you prepared for Awaab's law?

Everyone working in the housing sector remembers the tragic death in December 2020 of Awaab Ishak. He died from exposure to mould in his family’s social housing property in Rochdale.

Awaab’s death has led to a change in legislation with more duties placed upon social landlords (there are proposals for these new duties to be extended to the private sector). This followed a consultation by the Conservative Government about how the proposals should be implemented.

Parliament has now passed Awaab’s law into legislation. This can be found in Section 42 of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which inserts a new Section 10A into the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Significantly, the new law has retrospective effect. All tenancies and leases, even those existing before the Act comes into force, will be caught by its provisions. That means landlords will need to address existing problems and defects in line with their new duties.

Regulations on their way

Section 42 also states that regulations will be brought into force. These will set out the conditions that will need to be met and the time limits that will apply.

The Regulations are not yet in force, but the consultation proposed the following in terms of scope and time limits

Scope

It has been proposed that Awaab’s Law should apply to all 29 health and safety hazards set out by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) – not just damp and mould.

The proposed threshold for hazards under the new law is that they could pose a significant risk to the health or safety of the actual resident.

Time limits

Similar to the timescales put forward by Awaab Ishak’s family, the new law proposes that landlords:

Investigate hazards and provide residents with a written summary within 14 days
Begin repairs within a further 7 days and satisfactorily complete them within a reasonable period of time
Make emergency repairs within 24 hours
Social landlords must secure suitable alternative accommodation if the repairs cannot be completed in a reasonable timescale and where the hazard poses a significant risk, harm or danger to residents.

What qualifies as an emergency repair?

The consultation document defines this as hazards that present “a significant and imminent risk of harm”.

Defences

There is a defence. To rely on it, associations will have to show that all reasonable endeavours have been made to avoid the breach of tenancy agreement. This will require a clear paper trail along with concerted efforts to try to resolve the issue.

What do you need to do to prepare?

We await the date that the Regulations are to be brought into force. That is expected to be sometime this year. Once the Regulations become law, implementation could follow swiftly.

Your association will need to be ready to meet the short time limits set out above. Equally, you will need to be confident that your contractors are able to meet the timescales for repair.
You may need to implement a system (or update their current asset management system) to record reported issues that could be caught by the new law and mark those repairs as priorities to be resolved within the new timescales
You may also need to consider decant accommodation more often than you would normally do at present.

To prepare, we suggest that all associations make sure they are on top of those properties where there is a housing condition (disrepair) claim intimated or where there is a complaint about repairs.

Wherever there is a hazard present under the HHSRS, your association will need to be able to act quickly.

At CobbWarren, we can advise you on all your options for these forthcoming changes. Contact us today to speak to one of our specialist housing solicitors.

< Older Post Newer Post >

What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store

February 26, 2025

What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store for ASB and Housing Providers

Pitch fee increases and exceptionally high RPI/CPI

By Joseph Warren • October 21, 2024

Is an exceptional level of RPI good reason to depart from an increase in pitch fees at that level? – Mobile Homes Act 1983

Positive Requirements in ASB injunctions

By Daryl Bigwood • October 14, 2024

Cobb Warren were recently successful in an appeal against the decision of a District Judge to refuse an application to include a positive requirement in an injunction pursuant to Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 ("the 2014 Act"). This took place in October in front of a Circuit Judge in the County Court at Bristol. Our client sought to include a provision requiring the respondent to engage with support services to help address the underlying causes of the anti-social behaviour the respondent engaged in. The District Judge at first instance refused the application on the basis that such an order would amount to an order of mandamus (orders of mandamus have, since 2004, been known as ‘mandatory orders’ - they are specific to public law matters) and therefore, pursuant to section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984. The District Judge said that the County Court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order. The appeal was argued on two points: 1. The order was not an order of mandamus (or mandatory order) as such orders are remedies in public law proceedings only and not private law proceedings; or 2. In any event, even if it were, the 2014 Act creates a separate statutory scheme which enables the County Court to include any positive requirements in an injunction in order to prevent the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour. The Circuit Judge hearing the appeal allowed the appeal on both grounds. In respects of the second ground, we advanced an argument that the decision in Swindon Borough Council v Abrook [2024] EWCA Civ 221 supported the ground as: 1. The Court of Appeal determined that the Court’s usual case management powers to vary or set aside an order of its own volition did not apply to injunctions under the 2014 Act. This was therefore indicative of the 2014 Act creating its own statutory scheme. 2. The Court of Appeal was considering an appeal from the decision of a District Judge in the County Court and determined, at paragraph 109 of that earlier judgment that a Court should consider making positive requirements. Therefore, the Court of Appeal seemingly accepted that positive requirements were available in the County Court. Overall, we achieved a good outcome for our client and obtained clarity as to the use of positive requirements. Such requirements can often be more effective in addressing anti-social behaviour, by addressing the causes of the behaviour, rather than simply prohibiting the behaviour itself. A review of the Court's powers in relation to Anti-Social Behaviour by the Civil Justice Council in 2020 emphasised the importance of including positive requirements in injunctions. One of its recommendation was to increase their use as a way of addressing underlying issue causing Anti-Social Behaviour. If you need to discuss the above case or require any guidance please get in touch with us.

Are you prepared for Awaab's law?

What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store

Pitch fee increases and exceptionally high RPI/CPI

Positive Requirements in ASB injunctions

Newsflash - Renters' Rights Bill 2024

Responding to the riots: what powers do Housing Associations have?

Forced Access Oh No You Can’t – Oh Yes You Can!

CobbWarren Ranked in Chambers & Partners for First Time

Renters Reform Roundup for Registered Providers