Social landlords forced to fix dangerous mould from October under Awaab's Law - as charity criticises 'delay'
A law to force social landlords to investigate and fix hazards within a set timescale will be phased in from October, the government has announced.
The legislation is named after two-year-old Awaab Ishak, who from a respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to mould in the social home his family rented in Rochdale, Greater Manchester.
Politics latest:
The tragedy sparked after an inquest heard how action to treat and prevent the mould was not taken - despite the boy's father repeatedly raising the issue with Rochdale Boroughwide Housing (RBH).
In response, the then Conservative government pledged to introduce Awaab's Law to hold social landlords to account, with Labour vowing to implement and extend it to the private sector if they won the general election, which they did last July.
Setting out the next steps, Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner said it will come into force in the social rented sector from October this year.
It means social landlords will be required to address damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm to tenants within fixed timescales.
The timescales were not set out in Ms Rayner's statement.
A consultation under the Tories had proposed forcing landlords to investigate the problems within 14 days, and fix them within a further seven, but it is not clear if this will still be the case - with more details expected later down the line.
Ms Rayner said that from October 2025, social landlords will also have to address all emergency repairs, whether they relate to damp and mould or any other hazard, as soon as possible and within no longer than 24 hours.
What happens after 2025?
From 2026, the requirements will apply to a wider range of non-emergency hazards beyond damp and mould, including excess cold and excess heat, falls, structural collapse and fire, electrical and hygiene hazards.
Then in 2027, the requirements of Awaab's Law will expand to the remaining hazards as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (excluding overcrowding).
This includes issues like keeping a property secure against intruders, inadequate lighting and exposure to noise.
'Delays put people at risk'
Ms Rayner said the phased approach "in no way means that social landlords have any leeway" when it comes to meeting their existing duties to keep tenants safe, amid criticism from housing campaigners.
She said the sequencing is required so protections to damp and mould can be introduced earlier than would be the case if the government sought to apply Awaab's Law to all hazards from the outset.
But Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter, said: "Four years after Awaab's death, and nearly two years after the Social Housing Regulation Act received Royal Assent, today's announcement means social housing tenants will have to wait years longer for this vital protection.
"These delays to implementation represent a real risk to the health and safety of tenants, and puts lives at risk."
Awwab's Law follows campaigning from his parents, who said they hoped it would stop other families going through what they did.
There are widespread issues with damp, mould and disrepair across homes in England, which are in the worst condition of all European countries while being more expensive to buy,
Complaints over social housing increased by over 300% in 2024, while almost half of private renters , Sky News has previously reported.
Read More:
It is not clear when Awaab's Law could be extended to the private sector, as promised in Labour's manifesto. The government said this will be done through its which is currently going through parliament.
Ministers are also consulting on a new Decent Homes Standard, which sets minimum standards for the condition of social homes, and will separately legislate to require social landlords to carry out electrical safety checks and appliance inspections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Abbott calls Starmer's immigration comments ‘fundamentally racist' at rally
Backbench Labour MP Diane Abbott has criticised Sir Keir Starmer's comments on immigration as 'fundamentally racist' at a protest rally, suggesting the Government was copying the rhetoric of Reform UK. Thousands of trade unionists, campaigners and activists gathered to 'send a message' to the Government at a demonstration over spending cuts and welfare reform in central London on Saturday. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ms Abbott were among those who gave speeches at the rally outside Downing Street following a march. Organisers The People's Assembly accused the Government of making spending cuts that target the poorest in society. The Prime Minister said the UK risked becoming 'an island of strangers' when he unveiled plans for tighter controls on immigration in a major speech last month, leading to a mixed reaction from different parties. Addressing the protest crowd in Whitehall, Ms Abbott – who was previously suspended by Labour in 2023 before being allowed to run in last year's general election – said there was an international struggle to 'fight the rich and the powerful (and) to fight the racists', including in her own party. The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP said: 'I was very disturbed to hear Keir Starmer on the subject of immigration. 'He talked about closing the book on a squalid chapter for our politics – immigrants represent a squalid chapter. 'He talked about how he thought immigration has done incalculable damage to this green and pleasant land, which, of course, is nonsense – immigrants built this land. 'And, finally, he said we risk becoming an island of strangers. 'I thought that was a fundamentally racist thing to say. It is contrary to Britain's history. 'My parents came to this country in the 50s. They were not strangers. They helped to build this country. 'I think Keir Starmer is quite wrong to say that the way that you beat Reform is to copy Reform.' Reform's leader Nigel Farage previously said his party 'very much enjoyed' Sir Keir's speech, as it showed he was 'learning a great deal' from them. Representatives from the National Education Union, Revolutionary Communist Party, Green Party and the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union could be seen at the demonstration's start point in Portland Place. The large crowd then set off towards Whitehall shortly before 1pm. Many of the protesters were holding placards that read 'Tax the rich, stop the cuts – welfare not warfare'. Other signs being held aloft said 'Nurses not nukes' and 'Cut war, not welfare'. Mr Corbyn, who also criticised Sir Keir's 'island of strangers' comments, told protesters at the rally: 'As the wars rage around the world – the killing fields in Ukraine and Russia, the abominable, deliberate starvation of children in Gaza and the genocide that's inflicted against the Palestinian people continues – surely to goodness we need a world of peace. 'We need a world of peace that will come through the vision of peace, the vision of disarmament and the vision of actually challenging the causes of war, which leads to the desperation and the refugee flows of today.' The Independent MP for Islington North urged protesters to 'go forward as a movement of hope, of what we can achieve together (and) the society we can build together'. The People's Assembly said trade unionists, health, disability, housing and welfare campaigners with community organisations came together for the protest under the slogan 'No to Austerity2.0'. A spokesperson said: 'The adherence to 'fiscal rules' traps us in a public service funding crisis, increasing poverty, worsening mental health and freezing public sector pay. 'Scrapping winter fuel payments, keeping the Tory two-child benefit cap, abandoning Waspi women, cutting £5 billion of welfare by limiting Pip and universal credit eligibility, and slashing UK foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP, while increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, are presented as 'tough choices'. 'Real tough choices would be for a Labour government to tax the rich and their hidden wealth, to fund public services, fair pay, investment in communities and the NHS.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year
The Home Office plans to spend about £2.2 billion of foreign aid to support asylum seekers this financial year, according to new figures. The amount of overseas development assistance (ODA) budgeted by the Home Office – which is largely used to cover accommodation costs such as hotels for asylum seekers – is slightly less than the £2.3 billion it spent in 2024/25. International rules allow countries to count first-year costs of supporting refugees as overseas development assistance (ODA). The figures, first reported by the BBC, were published in recent days on the Home Office website. The Home Office said it is 'urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs' which will cut the amount spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. It also said it was expected to have saved £500 million in asylum support costs in the last financial year, and that this had saved £200 million in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. A total of 32,345 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March this year. This figure is down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. Labour has previously said it is 'committed to end the use of asylum hotels over time', adding that under the previous Conservative government at one stage 'more than 400 hotels were in use and almost £9 million per day was being spent'. Jo White, chairwoman of the Red Wall group of Labour MPs, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: 'We need to be looking at things like ECHR article eight. I don't think anything's off the table … including looking at new options such as processing abroad. 'So, we have to be open to see how we can move move that backlog as quickly as possible. I'm getting impatient. 'I know my colleagues in parliament are getting impatient and we're pressing the Government as hard as we can on this.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure and are urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of official development assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4 billion by 2026. 'The Rwanda scheme also wasted £700 million to remove just four volunteers – instead, we have surged removals to nearly 30,000 since the election, are giving law enforcement new counter-terror style powers, and increasing intelligence sharing through our Border Security Command to tackle the heart of the issue, vile people-smuggling gangs.'
