Has Scotland Got the Balance Right on Awaab’s Law? A Controversial Stance
A recent Scottish Housing News article asked whether Scotland has got the balance right on Awaab’s Law. Its answer, broadly, is yes: the guidance values investigation quality and root cause as much as speed; it handles tenant behaviour without blame; sensors are useful but do not replace a real look; and a mould wash alone is unlikely to cut it if nothing stops the mould coming back.
This blog may be a bit on the controversial side but I am not convinced the balance when it comes to the timescales and what’s expected to be done within those timescales is right.
I am not arguing against investigating properly, tackling root cause, or working with tenants instead of blaming them. I don’t think the SHN article wrestles with the reality of achieving these new targets or how the 5-day commencement and 20-day work completion land in real repair systems.
A summary of the Regulations
From the 6th of October, social landlords broadly must: investigate within 10 working days beginning with the day after awareness; issue a written summary within 3 working days beginning with the day after the investigation concludes; if substantial damp or mould is identified, commence repair within 5 working days beginning with the day after that conclusion; and complete within 20 working days from commencement. Private landlords get the same investigate / summary / commence shape — but completion is within a reasonable time. No matching 20-day hard stop. The purpose of the repair is that the home is substantially free and, so far as reasonably practicable, continues to be.
That last phrase — continue to be free — is where I feel a thorough process the 20-day work completion target collide in my view.
The 5 day commencement or 5 day make safe?
The guidance explains that commencement can include immediate mould treatment or other temporary remedial work. Practice and statute talk past each other.
Leaks and traumatic water ingress are already covered by Right to Repair with faster timescales. Where a significant leak is a qualifying repair under RTR, you fix it on that timescale.
So what is the 5-day commence window actually doing for most damp/mould cases that are not a live leak? In my view, it is trying to be a catch-all for “start the repair,” when in reality its going to be a 5 day make safe substantial mould. That is mould wash / safe removal, temporary extract where needed, sealing obvious paths where safe, then a follow up for the routine works.
It should have been worded that way: make safe substantial mould within 5 working days. Instead we have “commence any repair work,” which sounds tidy in guidance and messy in a works management system.
It is going to prove challenging for associations to prove “commencement” by appointment booking alone. An appointment in the diary is not a commenced repair. Is an initial survey by a contractor a commenced repair? How do you record this commencement? I assume most associations will raise an urgent initial make-safe so the file shows something physical happened inside the five-day window. That is compliance theatre born of ambiguous wording, (queue the frantic meetings with cleaning contractors ensuring they can attend within a 3 day urgent). Its allot easier for a manager to run a report to show all DMC urgent jobs were completed on time than figure out a way to extrapolate repair commencement data.
The 20-day completion clock is over encompassing and disproportionate when compared to private landlords
For social landlords, repair work to make the home substantially free must be completed within 20 working days from commencement. For private landlords, completion is within a reasonable time. Same damp. Same mould. Same “continue to be substantially free” purpose. Different hard stop.
If the 20 days were for ordinary responsive repairs, for example; replacing an extract, renewing a radiator valve, repairing a leaky tap, patching a gutter – I don’t think there would be a problem.
That is not what the legislation and guidance are pushing toward, we are talking about preventing mould coming back and landlords being judged on re-opened cases. So, this for me leads officers rightly to say fine lets throw the kitchen sink at it and worry about the budget later.
But “ensure mould does not return” will not just involve completing responsive repairs. It’s going to inevitably involve enhancement and improvement work like:
- internal wall insulation
- upgrading radiators / heating capacity
- cladding cold ceilings
- in some instances, replacing bathrooms or kitchens
- upgrading ventilation systems (and sometimes whole-house approaches)
- installing PIVs
- dealing with fabric defects
Those items often cannot be reliably designed, procured, accessed and finished in 20 working days. Specs, materials, contractor diaries, asbestos checks, planned investment cycles — none of that cares about a tidy statutory envelope. If a tenant is decanted and there are major works is this still held to 20 days? I would be noting it down to exceptional circumstances in that case but it would be interesting to see this challenged, maybe the tenant would get the RTR payment for the inconvenience.
Beyond-control / exceptional circumstances exist, and you should use them properly: notify the tenant, give a revised period, mitigate meanwhile. However the 20 day completion standard which seems to now extend to enhancements and property improvements will be a challenge to meet unless they all fall under exception.
The behavioural consequence: throw it all at the wall
This is the bit that will cost the sector.
Under a hard 20-day “stop mould returning” pressure, officers jump the gun. The usual process of elimination exploring different repair solutions, test one hypothesis, then the next — gets abandoned for a catch-all, throw-it-all-at-the-wall approach. Spec everything that might help. Book the wash, the fan, the insulation, the radiators, the ceiling cladding, “just in case,” because missing the clock looks worse than over-ordering.
That will balloon DMC budgets as officers simply don’t have the time to take a more considered approach and the incentive is just to over-specify rather than have a case possibly re-open. Over the coming years the financial impact will be massive — not because root cause is wrong as an idea, but because a 20-day hard completion duty for social landlords, paired with “continue to be substantially free,” rewards scattergun spending over disciplined diagnosis.
Managers don’t want to see a monitoring period following the repairs and enhancements being completed, they want the case to be closed. This goes against the principal of effective damp mitigation.
Closing
I am not going to suggest improvements. I think time will tell how easy and workable these new regulations are and the ramifications of implementing them. I do think in the vast majority of cases there will not be a problem but initially we will see some over spending instead of a prudent approach so let’s see how those budgets manage at the end of the financial year.
In the meantime it will also be interesting to see how IT systems and procedures adapt to these changes.
Fundamentally though, Officers should not compromise good thorough investigation of complex cases due to feeling a pressure of a 10 day investigation period or over specifying work due to a 20 day repair period. Do what is right, make safe, keep the tenant informed and get to the root cause. That is ultimately what matters.
Thanks for reading. If you found this useful, feel free to subscribe via email for new Maintenance Corner posts.