Social housing landlords struggle to meet Awaab’s Law deadlines

With the government announcing phase two of Awaab’s Law, social housing landlords are still struggling to meet the response times set out under the first phase of the legislation.

A government research report into the rollout of Awaab’s Law for social housing found that its early implementation has been hampered by a number of barriers, including unclear definitions and uncertainty over how some of the requirements should be interpreted.

Under the Renters’ Rights Act, Awaab’s law will be extended to the private rented sector.

Delays and inconsistent communication

According to the report, social housing landlords are struggling to keep to the strict deadline for fixing hazards.

The report says: “While some participants described prompt, well-managed responses and clear follow-through, others reported delays, fragmented case handling and inconsistent communication, even for similar hazards.

“Emergency hazards such as gas leaks and floods were often addressed quickly, but damp and mould cases frequently extended over weeks or several months, with delays linked to seasonal capacity and slippage between inspection and remedial works.

Social housing landlords did not always identify or respond to tenant vulnerability at first contact, pointing to uneven implementation of the law’s intended protections.”

Apply Awaab’s law in practice

The report also warns that unclear definitions are making it difficult for social housing landlords to apply Awaab’s Law consistently in practice.

The report says: “At a high level, social housing landlords reported that the purpose and core duties of Awaab’s Law were well understood. However, they also described significant challenges in translating the legislation and associated guidance into operational practice, particularly where requirements depended on professional judgement rather than clear, objective benchmarks.

“Given the complexity and variability of real-world cases, some interpretation is unavoidable in practice and applying requirements consistently will inevitably involve a degree of subjectivity. In this context, there is a clear need for well- defined shared benchmarks and thresholds.

“Against this backdrop, the distinction between emergency and significant hazards, definitions of harm and vulnerability and when statutory ‘clocks’ start were widely described as subjective or insufficiently defined.

“Social housing landlords reported that this ambiguity increased the risk of inconsistent interpretation across teams and organisations and made it harder to embed clear triage pathways and compliance tracking processes.”