Awaab’s Law – Coming on 27 October 2025
July 9, 2025

Awaab’s Law – Coming on 27 October 2025

The Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 were laid before Parliament on 25 June 2025 (the draft Regulations are available here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348273083). 


These regulations, if approved, will mean that Awaab’s Law will apply to social housing providers from 27 October 2025.


The Government has also published draft non-statutory guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/awaabs-law-draft-guidance-for-social-landlords/awaabs-law-draft-guidance-for-social-landlords


Emergency Hazards


An emergency hazard is a hazard which poses an imminent and significant risk of harm to the health or safety of an occupier of the property. The hazard must:

  • Be any HHSRS hazard (except for a lack of adequate space for living and/or sleeping); and
  • Arise from a deficiency in the property (or from any other property or land in the vicinity) for which the landlord is responsible; and
  • Is not wholly or mainly attributable to the tenant’s breach of lease or any exclusion or modification ordered by the County Court under section 12 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.


Under the Regulations, landlords will have 24 hours, in respect of an emergency hazard, to either conduct repairs (but not including repairs/works to cladding). 


The 24-hour deadline ceases to apply where:

  • The tenant (and other occupiers) are decanted from the property before it expires; or
  • The required works cannot be completed without the consent of someone else and all reasonable steps to obtain such consent have been exhausted and the consent has not been obtained; or
  • A further investigation concludes that the hazard does not exist, or the works are not required.


Significant Hazards


Significant hazards are hazards which pose a significant risk of harm to the health or safety of an occupier of the property (N.B. an emergency hazard requires an ‘imminent’ and ‘significant’ risk whereas significant hazards only require ‘significant’ risk). The hazard must:

  • Be associated with exposure to damp, mould or fungal growth; and
  • Arise from a deficiency in the property (or from any other property or land in the vicinity) for which the landlord is responsible; and
  • Is not wholly or mainly attributable to the tenant’s breach of lease or any exclusion or modification ordered by the County Court under section 12 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.


An investigation must be completed:

  • Within 10 working days from the day after the landlord becomes aware of the issue or concern; or
  • If the tenant requires a physical inspection of the property, 10 working days from the day after such a request was made.


A summary of the investigation must be provided to the tenant within 3 working days from the day after the investigation was completed unless, within that time, all required works have been completed. It is worth noting that the Regulations also amend the usual rules regarding service by post in that the summary must only be posted (and not received) within the 3 working days.


Under the Regulations, landlords will have 5 working days (from the date of the conclusion of the investigation) to repair significant hazards (but not including repairs/works to cladding).


The 5 working day deadline ceases to apply where:

  • The tenant (and other occupiers) is decanted from the property before it expires (provided the works are then completed as soon as reasonably practicable); or
  • The required works cannot be completed without the consent of someone else and all reasonable steps to obtain such consent have been exhausted and the consent has not been obtained; or
  • A further investigation concludes that the hazard does not exist, or the works are not required.


Preventative Works


Where preventative works are identified, these must also be commenced either:

  • Within 5 working days from the day after the investigation was completed; or
  • Where this is not reasonably practicable, within 12 weeks of the conclusion of the investigation.


Preventative works must be completed within a reasonable period.


Preventative works will cease to be required where:

  • The required works cannot be completed without the consent of someone else and all reasonable steps to obtain such consent have been exhausted and the consent has not been obtained; or
  • A further investigation concludes that the hazard does not exist, or the works are not required.


Keeping the Tenant Updated


The tenant must be kept regularly updated and must be updated at the following points:

  • The works are complete;
  • Where the required works cannot be completed without the consent of someone else and all reasonable steps to obtain such consent have been exhausted and the consent cannot be obtained;
  • A further investigation concludes that the hazard does not exist, or the works are not required.


Retrospective Application


The Regulations have retrospective application to existing hazards (i.e. hazards that existed before 27 October 2025) where:

  • A report is received on or after 27 October 2025 about that hazard; or
  • There is a material change on or after 27 October 2025 relating to a hazard which the landlord was aware of before 27 October 2025.


June 5, 2025
Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership – Another look at Hoarding?
February 26, 2025
What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store for ASB and Housing Providers
January 23, 2025
Are you prepared for Awaab's law?
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
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.
September 12, 2024
Newsflash - Renters' Rights Bill 2024 
By Joseph Warren August 7, 2024
Responding to the riots: what powers do Housing Associations have?
By Joseph Warren July 15, 2024
Recent CobbWarren court success clarifies the position on Access Injunctions
Show More