Awaab’s law is coming. But not for students in halls

If you’re in a standard house share, you’ll get the protection of the Renters’ Rights Bill (RRB), including the new Private Rented Sector Ombudsman, the right to leave on two months’ notice, contracts that are not fixed term and so on.

To keep the student housing market moving, if you’re in a House in Multiple Occupation (five or more people, sharing facilities) that only has students in it, your landlord will be able to evict you in June, July, August or September the year after you move in.

But you’re in purpose-built student accommodation, you don’t pick up most of the rights in the RRB. You’re still on the hook for what is often a 50 week contract, and your wider rights will be determined by whichever Code of Practice your building subscribes to.

Once the RRB is in law, anyone operating PBSA will have to join one of the codes – and there are three. University-managed halls can join either the ANUK/Unipol Code for Educational Establishments or the UUK/GuildHE Code. Private purpose-built student accommodation can join the ANUK/Unipol National Code. Each has different standards and different complaints procedures.

Two of the three Codes were reviewed some time ago. The ANUK/Unipol Code for Educational Establishments was reviewed then approved in September 2024. The UUK/GuildHE Code was reviewed then approved in March 2025. And the third Code – the ANUK/Unipol National Code for private purpose-built student accommodation – has been reviewed more recently.

The consultation on proposed changes ran in February 2025, with feedback published in September 2025. Most proposals made it through. Changes to clarify membership criteria, confirming that buildings must be solely or principally occupied by students and excluding Build to Rent schemes, were kept. New requirements for members to provide company ownership details were included to help administrators track portfolio changes more easily.

The Complaints and Disputes section was completely rewritten with more detail about the powers of the Codes Complaints Investigator, the Audit Panel and the Tribunal. A new annex was added dealing with membership applications and the process for suspending or expelling members from the Code.

The final Code will include a right for students to end their tenancy by giving four weeks’ notice if they’re not accepted into their institution, withdraw from their course, or suspend their studies due to ill-health.

Provisions about what happens when an occupant dies were added, mirroring amendments made to the Renters’ Rights Bill and ensuring rental obligations end on the date of death. Changes to deposit protection were kept, and stuff on building safety and fire safety remediation was updated to reference government guidance.

But two proposals were dropped. A new clause will require members to adhere to government guidance on the remediation of residential buildings, specifically with respect to the impact on occupants – but proposed compensation rights have disappeared. The summary notes simply that this option:

…has not been taken forward at this time as compensation is not straightforward.

We can all look forward to the minutes of that meeting.

The consultation also included proposals for introducing timescales for responding to reports of damp and mould. The final Code includes a new clause requiring members to comply with government guidance on damp and mould, but the summary is explicit about what didn’t make it through:

A further proposal was included in the consultation on introducing timescales for responding to reports of damp and mould, and these proposals will not be taken forward at this time. This matter will be reconsidered at the new review, when more will be known about Awaab’s Law.

The Awaab Ishak Case

In December 2020, two-year-old Awaab Ishak died from a respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to mould in his family’s social housing flat in Rochdale. His parents had repeatedly reported the mould to their landlord, Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. The landlord had repeatedly failed to act.

The coroner’s conclusion was that Awaab died as a result of a severe respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to mould in the home. The coroner said Awaab’s death was avoidable, and that action to treat and prevent the mould should have been taken by the housing provider.

The case caused national outrage. It crystallised something that housing campaigners had been saying for years – that damp and mould in rented housing isn’t just unpleasant or inconvenient, it’s dangerous, and that landlords often don’t take it seriously enough.

Tenants struggle to get problems fixed, particularly when they’re in a weaker bargaining position. And that without clear legal requirements and proper enforcement, some landlords will continue to let people live in conditions that are slowly making them ill.

The government’s response was Awaab’s Law. Colloquially named after Awaab Ishak, the The Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 introduce specific, time-bound obligations for social landlords dealing with serious hazards including damp and mould.

From the end of this month, social landlords in England will have to investigate any potential damp and mould hazard within ten working days, and provide tenants with a written summary of their findings within three working days.

If they find a significant hazard, they will have to take action to make the home safe within five working days and begin work to prevent recurrence within five working days (or if that’s not possible, take steps to begin work within five working days, with actual work starting within 12 weeks).

And if the landlord can’t make the property safe within these timescales, they will have to provide suitable alternative accommodation at their own expense.

The regulations are being introduced in phases. From October 2025, they cover damp and mould and emergency hazards. In 2026, they’ll extend to excess cold, excess heat, falls, structural collapse, fire, electrical hazards, explosions and hygiene hazards. In 2027, they’ll cover all remaining hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System except overcrowding.

In her ministerial foreword to the consultation response, Angela Rayner was unequivocal.

Every tenant deserves safe, healthy conditions as a basic right. Should social landlords fail to meet strict deadlines, they must provide safe alternative accommodation – and if they don’t, tenants will have the power to take them to court.

From social housing to student housing

Little about the Awaab case was specific to social housing. Someone’s health being seriously impacted because a property owner didn’t fix mould could happen in any tenure.

Students are particularly vulnerable to poor housing conditions – away from home (and often their home country) for the first time, unfamiliar with their rights, and worried about complaining in case it affects their studies, their visa or their relationship with their university.

They’re living in areas with high housing demand where landlords have little incentive to maintain standards. And crucially, they’re often living in buildings where damp and mould are common problems because of the combination of older building stock, high occupancy density, and intensive use of bathroom and kitchen facilities.

In off-street housing, the Renters’ Rights Bill (RRB) gives ministers a power to apply Awaab’s Law to private tenancies (and certain licences) by regulations. Once commenced, those regulations will imply strict repair-timescale terms into PRS agreements – mirroring the social sector model – so tenants can enforce breaches with the new Ombuds and/or in court, and local authorities can penalise non-compliance alongside strengthened rent-repayment orders and a new enforcement architecture.

So the logic that led to Awaab’s Law in social housing should apply to Purpose-Built Student housing too. If a hazard poses a significant risk to health or safety, it should be investigated quickly, the tenant should be told what’s been found and what will be done about it, the problem should be fixed promptly, and if it can’t be fixed, the tenant should be moved somewhere safe.

So you might assume that the three codes will incorporate these protections. At a minimum, you might assume that the one that’s been looked at this year that applies to the private sector would incorporate them.

In social housing, Awaab’s Law comes into force on 27 October. But as of now, none of the three student accommodation codes include Awaab’s Law requirements.

The two codes reviewed before Awaab’s Law came into force – the ANUK Code for Educational Establishments (September 2024) and the UUK/GuildHE Code (March 2025) – predate the regulations. They have general repair obligations and some timescales for emergency repairs, but nothing approaching the specificity of Awaab’s Law.

Meanwhile the Unipol/ANUK National Code was reviewed this year. The consultation ran in February 2025, and feedback was published in September 2025. The government laid the draft Awaab’s Law regulations before Parliament on 25 June 2025. An update on the Unipol/ANUK code was published in September 2025.

But apparently “more needs to be known” about Awaab’s Law.

The differences

For investigation timescales, as of next month, social housing tenants get ten working days. The Unipol/ANUK code requires investigations to happen but sets no time limit.

Social housing tenants must receive a written summary within three working days explaining what hazard has been found and what will be done about it. The National Code requires landlords to communicate with occupants but doesn’t require written summaries of investigation findings.

Social housing landlords must make homes safe within five working days. The National Code requires Priority One emergency repairs within 24 hours but has no specific timescale for making homes affected by damp and mould safe.

Social housing landlords must begin work to prevent hazards recurring within five working days, or at latest within 12 weeks. The National Code requires repairs to be completed within a “reasonable time period” with no fixed backstop.

Social housing landlords must provide alternative accommodation if they can’t make the home safe within the required timescales. The National Code has no such requirement.

Time for change

Having five different legal frameworks for student housing is already problematic. Students moving between accommodation types during their degree will navigate different complaints procedures, different repair timescales and different enforcement mechanisms.

It creates confusion, makes it harder for students to know and exercise their rights, and makes it nearly impossible to compare standards across the sector.

But the more serious problem is that rights over damp and mould in purpose-built accommodation will be weaker than rights in the worst quality PBSA.

That’s not necessarily because purpose-built accommodation is better maintained. Anyone who has worked in student housing knows that damp and mould are endemic in many student buildings, particularly older properties. The difference is simply that purpose-built accommodation is covered by Codes rather than by general housing law.

The government has clear legal authority. Section 233 of the Housing Act 2004 gives the Secretary of State power to approve the Codes of Practice that create the exemption from most of the Renters’ Rights Bill.

If the new Secretary of State hasn’t yet approved the current versions of the three Codes, then now is the time to set standards. Before giving approval, the government should require each Code to incorporate requirements at least as protective as Awaab’s Law.

While they’re at it, they could ask why on earth we might expect students to be able to differentiate between three sets of rights depending on which Code their halls happen to belong to. They might also ask why the same sorts of rent controls that exist in the social housing sector don’t apply in what is effectively the student social housing sector. They could even – I know, I know – respond to the recommendations in the Augar review on accommodation when they respond to all the others in the Skills white paper.

But for now, requiring all three Codes to comply with the same law that’s been applied on damp and mould in social housing to student housing would be a jolly good start. And requiring all three to adopt what’s coming on excess cold, excess heat, falls, structural collapse, fire, electrical hazards, explosions, hygiene and other hazards should be a firm commitment too.