The Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025, known as "Awaab's Law" after two-year-old Awaab Ishak, impose strict, enforceable timescales on social landlords to investigate and remedy hazards reported by tenants. Phase 1, in force since 27 October 2025, covers damp, mould, and emergency hazards; Phase 2, coming into force on 30 November 2026, extends the regime to electrical hazards, falls and trip risks, fire and explosion risks, excess cold, excess heat, structural collapse, and domestic hygiene issues including pest infestations. Phase 3 is expected in 2027 and will capture all remaining hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, excluding overcrowding.
The only statutory defence available to a landlord accused of breach is that it used "all reasonable endeavours" to avoid it. As the regime tightens, questions of liability allocation between landlords, managing agents, surveyors, contractors and specialist consultants will become increasingly contested. This practice note maps the potential claims that arise where a hazard is reported late, incorrectly diagnosed or inadequately remedied, and offers practical guidance on protecting position.
The statutory framework and its interaction with existing obligations
Under Phase 1, emergency hazards are defined as those posing "an imminent and significant risk of harm" and must be investigated and remediated within 24 hours of being reported. Reports of damp or mould must be investigated within 14 days, a written report provided to the tenant, and necessary repairs carried out within 7 days of that report being issued. Where repairs cannot be completed within those timescales, the landlord must offer suitable alternative accommodation.
These obligations are implied into social housing leases as a landlord's covenant. They sit alongside – rather than replace – a landlord's existing repairing obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Defective Premises Act 1972, and the common law duty of care in negligence. In practice, this means that a single failure to address a reported hazard may give rise to overlapping claims in contract (breach of the implied Awaab's Law covenant and any express repairing covenant), in tort (negligence causing personal injury or property damage), and under statute. Where the landlord has delegated day-to-day management to an agent, the contractual allocation of responsibility in the property management agreement becomes critical.
Late reporting and missed hazards
The landlord's obligation begins at the point of notification of a hazard. Property managers acting on behalf of landlords must have systems in place to enable tenants to report hazards and to ensure those reports are promptly captured and escalated. A managing agent who fails to pass a report to the landlord, or who allows it to languish in an unmonitored inbox, exposes the landlord to breach of the statutory timescales and risks a contribution claim under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 if the tenant pursues the landlord for consequential losses.
Conversely, where a hazard exists but has not been reported by the tenant, the position is more nuanced. A landlord who has carried out regular inspections which did not identify the hazard may argue that the statutory clock has not started. However, if an inspection ought reasonably to have identified the hazard, there may be a dispute about constructive knowledge. Property managers should therefore increase inspection frequency for higher-risk properties, particularly older buildings, and use pre-prepared checklists to identify early signs of damp, mould and, under Phase 2, electrical, structural and fire hazards.
Incorrect diagnosis
Surveyors instructed to investigate a reported hazard now have onerous timescales to comply with and face a higher risk where the hazard is not diagnosed correctly. The statutory timescale for completing repairs runs from the date of the investigation report, meaning that an incorrect diagnosis does not stop the clock – it merely delays effective remediation and deepens the landlord's (and, in turn, the surveyor's) exposure. A surveyor who misidentifies a condensation issue as lifestyle-related when in fact it stems from a structural defect may face claims in professional negligence, with the landlord arguing that timely and accurate advice would have enabled it to comply with its statutory obligations.
Phase 2 heightens this risk considerably. Unlike damp and mould, many Phase 2 hazards such as structural collapse, electrical faults and excess cold arise from "built-in" defects inherent in the original design or structural fabric of the building. Diagnosing these hazards correctly may require specialist input beyond the competence of a general building surveyor, exposing surveyors to the risk of exceeding the boundaries of their competence or failing to make a timely referral to a specialist. Where a specialist consultant (eg a structural engineer or electrical contractor) is engaged and provides flawed advice, the chain of potential contribution claims lengthens.
Inadequate remediation
Where a contractor carries out repair works that prove insufficient to eliminate the hazard, the landlord remains in continuing breach of the statutory timescales. Claims against the contractor will sound in contract (breach of the works contract or subcontract) and potentially in tort under the Defective Premises Act 1972, particularly given the Building Safety Act 2022's extension of limitation periods to 30 years retrospectively and 15 years prospectively. Social landlords in breach will increasingly look for recourse against housebuilders and the supply chain through contractual claims under development agreements, building contracts and collateral warranties.
Causation is likely to be the key battleground as the landlord must establish that the contractor's deficient work caused the breach and consequential losses. The contractor may argue that the scope of works was defined by the surveyor's specification, or that access restrictions or tenant behaviour prevented proper remediation. Where multiple contractors have been involved in successive attempts at repair, apportioning responsibility between them will require careful forensic analysis.
Contribution claims and contractual indemnities
The multi-party nature of the inspection and remediation chain makes contribution claims under the 1978 Act almost inevitable. A landlord found liable to a tenant – whether for personal injury caused by mould exposure or for breach of the statutory covenant – will seek to recover from its managing agent, surveyor or contractor in proportion to their respective responsibility.
The scope for such claims depends heavily on the contractual architecture. To manage the risks, property management agreements should clearly delineate responsibility for receiving and escalating hazard reports, instructing surveyors, commissioning works, and monitoring completion. Survey engagement letters and construction contracts should address the specific timescales imposed by Awaab's Law.
Record-keeping and evidence
The "all reasonable endeavours" defence places an evidential burden squarely on the landlord to demonstrate compliance at each stage. Ideally, property managers should keep detailed evidence of their actions and decision-making, including a comprehensive log of all inspections, actions taken, and communications with tenants, surveyors and contractors, with dates and times sufficient to demonstrate compliance with timescales. Similarly, good risk management for surveyors involves maintaining thorough reports and contemporaneous notes, since a landlord may rely on the surveyor's advice if accused of breach. Robust records will assist the surveyor in defending any subsequent professional negligence claim.
Professional indemnity and aggregation
Surveyors, managing agents and specialist consultants should review their professional indemnity cover in light of Awaab's Law. The risk of multiple claims arising from a single systemic failure (for example, a surveyor's repeated misdiagnosis of mould across an estate) raises aggregation issues. Whether and how claims aggregate will depend on the wording of the policy and can work in insurers' favour or the insured's favour, depending on the number and value of the claims. Early notification to insurers in compliance with the policy is essential. Insureds should check the notification threshold in their policy to ensure that they carry out the right analysis when deciding whether to notify. For RICS surveyors, a circumstance is defined as "an incident, occurrence, fact, matter, act or omission that might give rise to a claim", which is a relatively low bar. Early notification to the insurer will minimise coverage issues and enable the insured to seek insurers' support in addressing any errors.
Expansion beyond social housing
As Awaab's Law expands, the costs of non-compliance will increase and the web of potential claims between landlords, agents, surveyors, contractors and consultants will grow more complex. Section 60 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 extends Awaab's Law to private sector rental properties and section 61 extends it to properties that are occupied under licence; however, implementation is not expected to take place until as late as 2035. With approximately 5 million privately rented households, these disputes will only become more widespread.
Copyright & permissions
.jpg&w=3840&q=60)
