LGA response to the consultation on Awaab’s Law (with support from the District Councils Network)

The LGA is the national membership body for local authorities and we work on behalf of our member councils to support, promote and improve local government.

We are a politically-led, cross-party organisation that works on behalf of councils to ensure local government has a strong, credible voice with national government. We aim to influence and set the political agenda on the issues that matter to councils so they are able to deliver local solutions to national problems.

The DCN is a cross-party network of 169 district and unitary councils. We are a special interest group of the Local Government Association, providing a single voice for all district services.

• The Local Government Association welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation on Awaab’s Law. We support the principle that everyone deserves a safe, decent, warm, and affordable place to live and that health hazards should be investigated and fixed in a timely manner. Councils already work hard to deliver good outcomes for tenants – despite significant financial constraints – and are committed to improving housing conditions for all residents.
• We urge the government to clarify where Awaab’s Law may conflict with other repair regulations, including the Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994. The Right to Repair Regulations already stipulate timeframes for repairs in the social rented sector. We propose that the government either aligns the timescales set out in the Right to Repair Regulations with those proposed in Awaab’s Law or repeals the right to repair regulations to avoid conflicting regulations.
• Government is currently introducing multiple changes over the next few years that will impact on asset management services and delivery. These include Awaab’s Law, a proposed new Decent Homes Standard, and new Consumer Standards, including the new Competence and Conduct Standard with the requirement for professional qualifications. We are asking Government to ensure that these changes are coordinated and introduced in a sensible manner so that landlords can review their asset management models and delivery and respond to them in the round. This includes working with the sector to set a realistic and achievable timescale for implementation of Awaab’s Law.
• We are concerned that the cost impact assessment fails to adequately estimate the cost of implementing the proposals within this consultation. We urge the government to engage with councils to undertake a full, updated cost assessment to identify the likely costs of the proposals and allocate new burdens funding appropriately. 
• The proposed implementation of Awaab’s Law is likely to place an additional burden on local authorities in their role as registered providers of social housing. The LGA has repeatedly made both the Regulator for Social Housing (RSH) and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) aware of the significant financial income and expenditure pressures on individual Housing Revenue Accounts (HRAs) and the impact this is having on the ability to fund the vital investment needed to improve and regenerate existing stock and deliver effective social housing management services to tenants.
• The LGA welcomes the commitment that new burdens funding will be paid to local authority registered providers without an HRA but are concerned that those with an HRA (the vast majority) will need to fund the additional costs out of the income from rents. 
• The LGA continues to urge DLUHC to urgently undertake an in-depth review of the future sustainability of HRAs given the cumulative impact of a wide range of competing income and expenditure pressures. 

No. We agree that all housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) hazards should be dealt with in a timely fashion. However, we believe that Awaab’s Law should be defined as anything which is a significant and imminent risk to the household, as assessed by a competent professional. Some hazards within category 1 of the HHSRS including overcrowding, falling on level services, and ergonomics would be inappropriate within Awaab’s Law as these may lead to lower significant and immediate risk levels to those intended in the original proposal of damp and mould exclusively, and risks overwhelming the emergency repair system. We believe that registered providers should continue to use the existing legislative frameworks and regulations to resolve hazards which would fall outside of Awaab’s Law and may not present a significant and imminent risk of harm.

Defining Awaab’s Law as anything which presents a significant and imminent risk to the household, as assessed by a competent professional, would allow the registered provider (RP) the flexibility of using the hazards within the HHSRS to complete an investigation to assess the imminent and significant risk of the tenants, which would then lead to a triggering of the formal investigation if judged to be a high risk. Generally, while RP’s are mindful of the hazards within HHSRS category 1, these are not necessarily recorded specifically as HHSRS hazards and only if during the preliminary investigation a significant hazard or deficiency is found which may lead to a HHSRS categorisation then the RP would return to give a full rating. This is due to the length of the process and skills required to officially determine a category 1 hazard. 

No. We believe that the hazards in scope of Awaab’s Law should be those that pose a significant and imminent risk to the health and safety of the resident as assessed by a competent professional. 

The professional conducting the investigation must have the flexibility to determine whether the hazard identified presents both a significant and imminent risk to the household, and this should consider both the location and exposure of the hazard to the household. The professional should also consider any known pre-existing health conditions or vulnerabilities of the household. For instance, the risk level for damp and mould is different depending on whether the mould reported is contained in a small area or cupboard which the household may not use often, or in the bedroom or kitchen area where there may be prolonged exposure. 

The government should provide greater clarity on what constitutes a risk to health and safety of the household. We propose that the government publishes a series of case studies to illustrate examples of where hazards under HHSRS may, or may not, fall under the definition of a significant and imminent risk to the household members’ health and guidance to provide clarity to RP’s on what a significant risk would be to the health and safety of the household.

We have provided written responses to questions 1 and 2. 

No. The timeframe should be measured as working days. Government should account for the potential conflict between proposals under Awaab’s Law to existing ‘Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994’. The definition of calendar days under the Awaab’s Law proposals is different to those within the Right to Repair Regulations, which uses working days. The implications of defining Awaab’s Law as calendar days, alongside the proposed introduction of Awaab’s Law to all 29 HHSRS hazards is likely to have a significant burden for local authorities who do not traditionally work weekends and would incur significant staff and cost capacity concerns. 

We consider that the timescales for investigating a hazard should also align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code whereby the calculation for days should commence on the next working day after the landlord has become aware of the hazard and would mean that the notification from the tenant would be day 0. This means that if the RP becomes aware towards the end of a day, then they still have the full number of working days to investigate.

While many RP’s have internal service level agreements stating a 14-day, or less, requirement for external contractors to investigate hazards, the implementation of these requirements will registered providers to change existing contracts. We have further expanded on the cost implications in question 24.

Yes. In principle we believe that medical evidence should not be required for an investigation. Awaab’s Law should be a simple process for tenants to raise an issue with their property to their landlord and including a requirement for medical evidence risks creating an additional burden on tenants seeking assistance. Requiring medical evidence would also lead to delays within the timeframes proposed in Awaab’s Law and would not be a practical or feasible approach. 

However, the government must publish extensive guidance for landlords which includes information on how to assess health issues and when they meet the threshold for Awaab’s Law. We would welcome clarification on how landlords are expected to use, and store, any private medical information given by tenants and how tenant’s medical information may be used to support their decision making. We would welcome clarity on when the threshold for deciding whether to escalate the response time to 24 hours is likely to be met due to the tenant’s medical history. We would also welcome clarification over the requirements on the landlord if the tenant does not wish to provide their medical conditions or vulnerabilities. 

We propose that landlords are given the flexibility to request medical evidence in exceptional circumstances, for example if they have reason to believe the tenant does not have the medical conditions required to trigger Awaab’s Law, or in cases where it is likely the tenant(s) will need decanting from the property. Medical evidence may also be required in cases where a dispute arises between the assessment of the surveyor and the household, and whether they believe the measures set out in the action plan were or were not sufficient. 

We do not believe that the additional requirement under proposal one (assessing risk to residents to consider if the case is in scope of Awaab’s Law) which would require RP’s to make judgement on the medical vulnerabilities of their tenants is adequately recognised in the cost impact assessment. Our response to the cost impacts of Awaab’s Law is further discussed in question 24. 

We have provided written responses in questions 4 and 5.

Yes. We agree that registered providers should provide a written summary to residents of the investigation findings. It is common practise for registered providers to provide feedback to tenants in the form of written communication. 

The government must provide clarity over the definition of the issue of a written summary including whether the provider must send, or if the tenant must receive the written summary within the 48 hours. If, as proposed in the consultation, the resident’s communication preference is a hard copy, this may require postage of the summary and would require additional administrative time and incur extra costs. 

We would welcome greater clarity from the government through the publication of case studies with examples of appropriate written summaries to be provided to tenants. This would be most appropriately developed via collaboration between DLUHC and the social housing sector to ensure that what needs to be included in the written summaries is appropriate, proportionate, and beneficial to the tenants. 

We do not believe that the additional requirement for written summaries to be produced is adequately recognised in the cost impact assessment. Our response to the cost impacts of Awaab’s Law is further discussed in question 24. 

Yes. Overall, the minimum requirements for information to be contained in the written report appear sensible and would meet the need for the tenant to be clearly made aware of the issue and the further steps which will be required to remove the hazard.

Yes. We agree in principle that registered providers should have 48 hours to issue a written summary of investigations. However, providers must be given the flexibility if this is not possible for reasons outside of their control, for example where tenants require summaries in different languages and a translation may be required, or if tenants require correspondence by post. Awaab’s Law needs to have sufficient flexibility within the timeframe to allow for exceptions to the 48-hour timeframe.

We propose that, if the tenant must receive the summary of investigation findings within 48 hours and the tenant requests communication via post, that a virtual summary is sent, for example via email within this timescale and a written postal summary is also issued which can be received by the tenant outside of the 48 hours, as postal delivery times are out of the landlord’s control. 

There are further difficulties with the requirement for written summaries to provide information on the remedy and the timescale for completion within 48 hours of the investigation concluding. There may be situations where providers are waiting for confirmation from different contractors and companies for their availability to complete largescale investigations or building work for the property that would not be possible to collect within this timescale due to a need to complete further site visits and schedule in timelines for work. We would welcome clarification from the government on the extent of the details which are required in the written summary in the form of guidance and case studies. 

We do not believe that the additional requirement for written summaries to be produced in 48 hours is adequately recognised in the cost impact assessment. Our response to the cost impacts of Awaab’s Law is further discussed in question 24.  We also continue to highlight that the 48-hour timescale should be aligned in working days, rather than calendar days to align with other repair regulations and therefore providers should have two working days to respond due to staff availability and capacity. 

We have provided written responses to questions 8 and 9.

Yes. We agree in principle that registered providers should begin to repair the hazard, if it poses a significant risk to the health or safety of the tenant, within seven working days of the report concluding and that this is already common practise with many RP’s. This seven-day timeframe should focus on abating the significant and immediate risk to the resident posed by the hazard and dealing with making it safe. 

There will be instances where a hazard is identified in an investigation where it will not be possible to begin repair works within seven days. For examples, in cases of suspected asbestos, the undertaking of a sample can take around five working days. We would welcome greater clarification from government over the expectations for repair works when it is not possible to begin within seven days and urge the government to allow RP’s flexibility in these cases.

The consultation states that the seven days to begin repair works begins once the tenant has been issued the written summary of the investigation. As highlighted in our response to question 7, the government should clarify whether the issue of the written report is when the report is sent, or when the report has been received by the tenants as this would implications for the timescales of Awaab’s Law in cases where the tenant has requested a postal report. 

We urge the government to clarify where Awaab’s Law may conflict with other repair regulations, including the Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994. The Right to Repair Regulations under this act already stipulate timeframes for repairs in the social rented sector. We propose that the government either aligns the timescales set out in the Right to Repair Regulations with those proposed in Awaab’s Law or repeals the right to repair regulations to avoid conflicting regulations and risks complicating both tenants and landlords if both regulations are running at the same time. It will also give Claims Harvesters more scope to exploit vulnerable tenants.

We have significant concerns surrounding the cost and practicalities of beginning emergency repair works within seven days and the capacity of the repair sector to respond to the implementation of Awaab’s Law. RP’s are reporting that there are already significant difficulties in finding contractors to deal with regular housing repairs for tenants and the implementation of this law is likely to lead to even higher demand for emergency repair works and risks overwhelming the sector. Our response to the financial cost impact is explored in question 24.

Yes. We agree that in cases of damp and mould, providers should take action to remove spores as soon as possible, particularly if the spores pose an immediate threat to health.

Registered providers should be able to use their discretion and have flexibility to prioritise cases where dampness and mould are in locations where residents spend a significant amount of time, such as bedrooms and living spaces.

We believe that the consultation paper and proposals do not adequately clarify when the seven-day period that social landlords should begin repair works would begin and would welcome clarification from government over the interpretation of ‘begin works’. We are concerned about the costs involved with beginning all repair works within seven days and our view on the cost implications are explored further in question 24. 

We urge government to undertake an in-depth assessment of the current repair sector to understand the implications if Awaab’s Law is introduced for all RP’s at once. RP’s have expressed severe concerns about the current capacity of the repair sector to respond and begin repair works under the timescales proposed in the consultation.

We have provided written responses in questions 11, 12 and 13.

Yes. The proposal that the registered provider must satisfactorily complete repair works within a reasonable time period, and that the household should be informed of this time period and their needs considered appears sensible.

We have provided a written response in question 15.

Yes, - the proposals for timescales for emergency repairs to be set out in legislation appear sensible. 

As expressed in question 4 we are concerned with the potential conflict of the proposals within Awaab’s Law to the existing Right to Repair regulations under the Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994. The government should consider aligning these two pieces of legislation through amending the Right to Repair Regulations and incorporating the proposals under Awaab’s Law or repealing the Right to Repair legislation. The implementation of both Awaab’s Law alongside the Right to Repair regulations risks significant complications and confusion for both tenants and registered providers. 

The legislation must be written in a way which ensures that there are legal recourse routes if the RP cannot meet the timescale in exceptional circumstances. We urge the government to produce additional guidance and case studies of when exceptional circumstances may mean that the timescales for Awaab’s Law cannot be met. 

Yes. We believe that social landlords should be required by law to action emergency repairs as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 24 hours. Repairing an emergency hazard within 24 hours is already common practice amongst most registered providers. We would welcome greater clarification over what the legislation would mean in practice and stress the need to allow flexibility for reasonable reasons why this may not be achieved by the provider.

We have provided a written response in question 18.

We agree in principle that tenants should be moved out of their property if the registered providers believe that there is a significant and imminent risk to the tenants’ health. We have significant concerns that the current shortage of social housing alongside the current proposals in Awaab’s Law, may result in tenants having to be decanted into temporary accommodation. The LGA has repeatedly highlighted the significant pressures that councils are facing with an 89 per cent rise in the number of households living in temporary accommodation over the past decade, costing councils at least £1.74 billion in 2022/23 alone. Councils are being forced to pay to house people in private temporary accommodation, including hotels and B&Bs while they wait for a permanent home.

The definition of what is covered under Awaab’s Law needs to be tightened to anything which is a significant and imminent risk to the household as assessed by a competent professional – not to cover all HHSRS hazards.  If the definition and threshold of the reported hazard, as we responded to in question 1, is not adequate, the costs and practical implications of decanting tenant’s risks overwhelming the already severe temporary accommodation shortages in local authorities. 

The existing Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2017 provides an adequate legislative framework for decanting and moving tenants where there is a significant risk to the tenant’s life and an additional legal burden under Awaab’s Law risks creating ambiguity for both landlord and tenant. We are concerned that may also lead to significantly more tenants requiring decant when competent professionals may assess that this would not necessarily be in the tenant’s best interest – particularly as full decants can take a significant time to undertake and may not be in the tenant’s local area. We urge government to enable registered providers the flexibility to ensure that those being decanted are doing so because the hazard within their home is a significant and imminent risk to the tenant’s life. 

We have provided a written response in question 20.

Yes. We consider that including provisions for a defence if landlords have taken all reasonable steps to comply with timeframes, but it has not been possible for reasons beyond their control is a sensible proposal.

We have provided a written response in question 22.

No – we have significant concerns surrounding the significant costs that the proposals would have for the sector. The proposed implementation of Awaab’s Law will place a significant cost burden on local authorities in their role as registered providers of social housing. We have repeatedly made both the RSH and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) aware of the significant financial income and expenditure pressures on individual Housing Revenue Accounts (HRAs) and the impact this is having on the ability to fund the vital investment needed to improve and regenerate existing stock and deliver effective social housing management services to tenants.

The assessments proposal for registered providers to be given 14 calendar days and the proposed introduction of Awaab’s Law to all 29 HHSRS hazards is likely to have a significant burden in terms of staffing costs. This is exacerbated both by the additional capacity for staff to medically assess whether the tenant is at a significant and imminent risk of harm in lieu of providing medical certificates, and due to the capacity to provide a written summary to residents of the investigation findings within 48 hours. The assessment of tenant’s medical concerns creates an additional time burden for landlords, which we do not believe has been adequately recognised within the timeframes proposed in the consultation, particularly if there are several communications between the landlord and the tenant to clarify and establish any health concerns in lieu of medical evidence. We also continue to highlight that the 48-hour timescale should be in working days rather than calendar days, to align with other repair regulations. 

The Awaab’s Law consultation stage impact assessment does not monetise the cost of increasing the speed of repairs ‘because providers already have a duty to repair hazards with these regulations only specifying the timeframes to begin doing so’. This fails to account for the additional costs of hiring emergency contractors to investigate, and repair, hazards at the weekend. While costs for out-of-hours work will vary significantly depending on the location of the registered provider and the nature of the specialism, this may be a 25 per cent to 35 percent increase on what the charges would be traditional working hours. We urge government to work with the sector to undertake an in-depth cost impact assessment on the increased costs associated with responding to repairs under a faster timescale. 

RPs are also likely to need to amend existing contracts with providers of repairs which may occur additional costs burdens. While many RP’s have internal service level agreements stipulating a 14-day, or less, timescale that external contractors must investigate hazards within, the implementation of these requirements will require significant notice, time, and flexibility for registered providers to change existing contracts and may cost RP’s to do. 

We have provided a written response in question 24.

No – the Awaab’s Law consultation stage impact assessment assumes that 15 minutes of staff time will be given to each report written and that the internal staff will have all the available information to produce the written summary. 

This does not account for the additional requirements proposed in the consultation such as what the RP will do to permanently rectify the problem and the likely timescales for this, or when further investigations may take place which may require communication with local contractors to estimate. 

Each report will likely take significantly more time that 15 minutes to produce and we urge government to reflect this in an updated cost-impact assessment.

We have provided a written response in question 26.

No - we are concerned that the cost impact assessment fails to adequately estimate the cost of implementing the proposals within this consultation. We urge the government to engage with RP’s to undertake a full, updated cost assessment to identify the likely costs of the proposals. 

In particular, the cost impact assessment proposes two hours per person for familiarisation costs of the legislation. This is likely to be an under-estimate considering the number of proposals under Awaab’s Law and time it will take for RP’s to familiarise themselves with the proposals.  

The government’s cost impact assessment states that introducing a timescale of 14 days to investigate hazards will have minimal costs as RP’s ‘often’ respond within these timescales already. This assumption fails to understand the reasons why some councils take longer to investigate hazards and the actual cost implications associated with this new burden. We urge government to engage with registered providers to understand current challenges within housing teams relating to capacity or resilience issues in their housing teams which explains why a 14-day target may be difficult to achieve. 

The governments cost impact assessment also states that the duty to make repairs to reported hazards is not a new burden on landlords, as the additional burden is the speed at which repairs need to be responded to, not the repairs themselves. However, the introduction of set timescales within the proposal is likely to lead to increased out-of-hours work including weekends which is likely to have increased costs. We urge government to undertake a survey to identify the increased costs associated with working outside of traditional working hours and integrate this into the cost assessment.