Awaab’s Law: From tragedy to regulation
Mould and damp have been persistent challenges for those managing housing stock across the UK, and have been highlighted as significant hazards in regulatory guidance. Bates and Newman rightly point to the death of two-year Awaab Ishaq in Rochdale in 2020 as a turning point. The coroner’s conclusion, that prolonged exposure to toxic mould in the family home had been the primary cause of Awaab’s death, generated considerable public focus on the maintenance and quality of social housing.
As an energy poverty research community, readers will be acutely aware of the importance of housing quality, its implications for health and wellbeing, and the central role of heating and cooling and therefore energy consumption. They will also know that residents in damp and mouldy properties require more energy to keep warm and restrict moisture to a minimum while maintaining adequate ventilation.
In November 2022, Michael Gove, then Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, referenced the case when he outlined a package of policy reforms including the Social Housing Regulation Bill. The development of this bill had begun in response to another social housing tragedy, the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, and included measures now being termed ‘Awaab’s Law’. It was accompanied by proposed changes to the Decent Homes Standard and a legally enforceable equivalent in the Private Rented Sector (PRS). In early 2023, Gove announced that Greater Manchester and the West Midlands regions would receive £30 million in government funding to improve the quality of their social housing stock. In Greater Manchester, this programme was referred to as the Social Housing Quality Fund (SHQF).
The passage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act in 2023 enabled a phased roll out of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025, to come into force in October 2025. It places tougher obligations on social landlords, who must investigate and remedy potential emergency hazards within 24 hours of becoming aware of them. Potential significant hazards must be investigated within 10 working days of notification and necessary safety work undertaken 5 working days after the end of an investigation. It also promised that tenants would be able to take legal action to hold their landlord to account. The current Labour Government also passed the Renters’ Rights Act , which as well as improving private tenants’ rights, extended the principle of ‘Awaab’s Law’ to the private rented sector. It also recently completed its promised consultation on a new Decent Homes Standard for social and privately rented homes.
Insights from Greater Manchester
How does this policy translate into action? Our research at the University of Salford, investigated the experiences of social housing tenants and evaluated the impact of the SHQF in the Greater Manchester context. Involving 17 housing providers, this programme saw over 16,000 properties benefit from £21.5 million worth of measures aimed at tackling mould, damp and condensation, including mould eradication, the installation of fans, and improved insulation.
We focused on tenants’ experiences, examining the impact of SHQF interventions in the context of longer-term impacts of mould and damp, on aspects of their lives, particularly their health and wellbeing. Analysis of data from 582 responses to our online survey, and 41 qualitative interviews, enabled us to investigate broad trends and reveal some of the personal stories behind the statistics. The survey respondents and interviewees were from households that were eligible for, and had received support through, the SHQF programme.
Tenant experiences
In relation to tenants’ experiences of housing conditions and their relationship with their housing provider, four major themes emerged. Firstly, it was clear that mould and damp had been pervasive issues for many households, with persistent negative impacts on health. 63% of survey respondents said that mould, damp or condensation had affected the health of themselves or someone else in their home, and 40% of these had talked to a health professional about it.
This was particularly acute for those with other chronic health conditions or vulnerable household members. One survey respondent stated both they and their young child had been repeatedly hospitalised:
When I showed the hospital staff the photos of the mould, they said they were no doubt in their minds that this was contributing towards his respiratory issues. Also, I have asthma and have been hospitalised with pneumonia. (Survey response)
Secondly, the research demonstrated the significant impact on tenants’ psychological wellbeing. As mould and damp damaged belongings, restricted living spaces and eroded their ability to make a home, properties became just somewhere they lived, rather than a home.
Thirdly, tenants had become adept at strategies to avoid and minimise damp, mould and condensation but were limited in what they could do. Whilst they generally understood what they needed to do, they often faced constraints. Limited household budgets, for example, often meant they had to restrict heating use, and they could not afford to tumble dry clothes; a clear example of conditions of fuel poverty having an ongoing impact upon indoor conditions. They often had no opportunity to dry laundry outside, creating damp conditions in the home.
Fourth, mould and damp (and other disrepair issues) had put a severe strain on their relationship with their housing provider. Many regularly reported problems with these issues but often faced challenges in getting a clear response and a long-term resolution. This negatively affected their confidence that any interventions, such as those in SHQF, would deliver positive change.
Impacts of the programme
Although the results were mixed, there was nonetheless evidence that the investment has made a positive difference to many residents. Not everyone was optimistic, however, and some were concerned that short term improvements might decrease as mould and damp returned in the winter. The impact appeared to vary by type of installed measure, a reflection of the wide range of different interventions delivered by the 17 participating housing providers.
Some reported significant improvements to their health and wellbeing. One man described improvements in relation to his respiratory condition:
There’s no mould whatsoever in the flat now. I’m really pleased about that, because of my breathing. I’m now breathing, I’m not 100 per cent as I was, but I’m breathing a lot better now than while that bit of mould was there. There’s nothing in the flat at all. Not even a little dot, a couple of dots or anything. The bathroom has cleared up completely with a big fan. (Interviewee 29)
In another example, this asthmatic interviewee reported changes in inhaler use:
It turned out that since the mould treatment I’ve not had to be on nebuliser as much, which is a big thing. Inhaler usage is a lot less, I’m not using like seven inhalers a month any more, I’m only using four, which is a big improvement. It has cut it down. The amount of steroids I was having to use, they’ve cut down dramatically. So yes, it has made a big impact. (Interviewee 17)
Likewise, others reported reduced stress and anxiety and feeling able to invite friends and family around when they had not been comfortable doing this before. In some cases, they could use bedrooms and bathrooms that they had previously avoided and redecorate these spaces. These impacts can be understood to reduce isolation and increase residents’ ability to make a home for themselves and their family. We should of course be aware mould and damp may return, particularly in the colder months. Some interviewees were aware of this and raised concerns about this prospect.
It should also be noted that some providers used the opportunity of the SHQF to promote general messages about managing the risk of mould and damp, but also other assistance options, such as financial support programmes. While this was welcomed by some tenants, others felt they were already doing all they could or were critical of conflicting information from different parties.
Moving forward: A sector-wide challenge
How we move forward on this issue is now an important consideration for the housing sector. In a recent social housing roundtable, Dr Eve Blezard from The Chartered Institute of Housing explained some of the practical challenges of implementing Awaab’s Law. She highlighted a set of questions. Does the sector have the capacity in terms of inspection and repair to fulfil the new obligations? How is the concept of ‘vulnerability’ understood and measured? The importance of evidence-based solutions that need combined housing and health approaches was emphasised, with the SHQF project, the West Midlands ACE programme, and the Welsh Housing Quality Standard highlighted as examples of good examples of integrated approaches.
While the policy objective of eliminating mould and damp is clearly important and urgent, it is likely the sector will find implementation extremely challenging. Rapid delivery schedules, linked to short-term political cycles, inevitably poses challenges. Like many programmes, SHQF entailed very short implementation timescales, which meant housing providers had limited opportunity to plan and research options, or to develop detailed communication strategies with tenants. In addition, it was left to the providers to decide which intervention would benefit their stock the most and which of their properties would receive works. The top-down approach might wield swift action, but is it inclusive, or does it risk further alienation of tenants?
With plans to extend the reach of Awaab’s Law to the private rented sector, we foresee significant challenges that will require financial support and institutional change. Conditions in this sector are generally worse than those in social housing. Mitigation is more challenging given the atomised nature of the sector, misaligned incentives between landlord and tenant, high turnover of tenants in many areas, and limited resources in local authorities to enforce even existing regulations.
A successful implementation is not just about compliance and enforcement: it will require a cultural shift in many providers, one in which properties are seen as people’s homes and not just stock to be maintained, and dignity and care are adopted as core values in relationships with tenants. While providers do issue regular communications to tenants with advice on a range of available support and resources, programmes like SHQF provide an opportunity to test out more innovative ways of effectively reaching the households they work with. We need a combination of effective long-term investment and rapid interventions to remedy mould and damp and other persistent issues in UK housing.
This research was completed by the University of Salford with funding from Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The full report (pdf) is available open access.
Authors: Graeme Sherriff, Philip Martin and Siobhan Kelly are researchers at University of Salford. Joshua Pink is now based at University of Bradford.