‘Significant’, ‘awareness’ and ‘reasonable endeavours’: what do these words really mean when it comes to Awaab’s Law?

“Emergency” or “significant”?

It is for a landlord to determine whether any particular hazard is an “emergency” or “significant”, but in light of the facts of Awaab Ishak’s death, it is likely that extensive mould growth will be classed as an emergency.

The guidance states that an emergency hazard is one that “poses an imminent and significant risk of harm to the health or safety of the occupier in the social home”.

An “imminent and significant risk of harm” is defined in the regulations as “a risk of harm to the occupier’s health or safety that a reasonable lessor with the relevant knowledge would take steps to make safe within 24 hours”. In other words, emergencies are those which could cause immediate harm to a tenant if not addressed quickly.

By contrast, significant hazards are stated to be those which “pose a significant risk of harm to the health or safety of an occupier of a social home”, that is, risks of harm that a reasonable landlord would take steps to make safe as a matter of urgency.

There is a degree of discretion within the guidance and regulations, but the clear message is that all risk should be addressed, with those which are obviously liable to cause immediate harm to be prioritised above all others.

The trigger of “awareness”

The starting pistol for a landlord’s obligations under Awaab’s Law is the point of “awareness”, the point in time at which they are made aware and put on notice of a potential hazard.

The guidance clarifies that a landlord is deemed aware not only when a tenant reports an issue, but also when a hazard is identified during a routine inspection, or when they are notified by a contractor, staff member or regulator.

Notification to a managing agent or contractor is likely to be legally construed as notification to the landlord itself. This makes ironclad internal reporting and escalation protocols with all third-party partners an absolute necessity. The statutory clock imposed by Awaab’s Law starts ticking as soon as the landlord is made aware of the possible hazard.

It would be advisable to review contracts and, where necessary, update them to explicitly require contractors to immediately report any hazards they encounter and to provide all necessary information for tenant summaries. Landlords remain ultimately responsible for their contractors’ compliance.

Right to a renewed investigation

One of the most significant additions is the formal right for tenants to request a “renewed investigation”. If an initial assessment is conducted remotely (such as via video call or photo evidence) and concludes no hazard exists, the tenant can demand an in-person follow-up.

For a significant hazard, this renewed investigation resets the clock and must be completed within 10 working days of the request. This provision prevents remote assessments from becoming a tool for bypassing thorough, physical scrutiny and empowers tenants to ensure proper scrutiny.

The unacceptable lifestyle assumption

The guidance uses forceful and unambiguous language to condemn the attribution of damp and mould to the tenant’s “lifestyle”. It states it is “unacceptable” for landlords to make such assumptions or to withhold investigation or remedial action on this basis.

A note on cladding

The guidance explicitly excludes cladding remediation from the scope of Awaab’s Law, classifying it as a complex, long-term project rather than an emergency repair.

However, if a fire safety hazard is reported in a building with cladding issues, the investigation and other immediate safety requirements of Awaab’s Law are still triggered.

The “reasonable endeavours” defence

While the duties are strict, the law provides a defence if a landlord can demonstrate that all “reasonable endeavours” were used to comply, but factors beyond their control prevented it.

Examples from the guidance include:

• Inability to gain access despite multiple, documented attempts at different times and via various communication channels
• Delays in receiving necessary regulatory approvals, provided the application was submitted promptly and correctly
• An inability to source specialist materials or contractors within the timeframe, despite exhaustive efforts
• A genuine lack of available suitable alternative accommodation in the locality

The burden of proof for this defence rests entirely on the landlord, making meticulous record-keeping a critical legal safeguard.

Cultural shift

There is still a lot that remains up to interpretation, which puts responsibility on the staff making those decisions. Frontline staff, particularly in contact centres, are often the first point of contact between a landlord and tenant. They must be trained to recognise the language of potential hazards, differentiate between emergency and significant repairs, and understand the prohibition on “lifestyle” judgements.

Beyond training, this may require a fundamental cultural shift towards proactive, empathetic and non-judgemental engagement, as well as appreciation of potential language barriers to effective reporting.

The updated guidance on Awaab’s Law marks the beginning of a new, more demanding era for social housing. While the new obligations will undoubtedly strain resources and force difficult, if not almost impossible, prioritisation decisions, they represent a fundamental and necessary step forward.

For now, registered providers have less than a year to get used to adhering to Phase 1 requirements, before it steps up a level again to include even more hazards in Phase 2 in 2026.

Bill Dunkerley, associate partner, Pannone Corporate