With the introduction of Awaab’s Law under the Social Housing Regulation Act 2023, the conversation around damp and mould in social housing has shifted decisively. What was once framed primarily as a service failure or reputational risk is now firmly a matter of legal accountability.

The law establishes clear, enforceable duties. Emergency hazards must be addressed within 24 hours. Investigations into potential damp and mould must begin within 10 days. Non-compliance carries consequences that extend beyond regulatory criticism to unlimited fines and, in extreme cases, criminal liability.

This is more than procedural tightening. It alters the risk model for landlords.

For decades, housing management has largely operated on a reactive basis. A resident reports an issue, a surveyor attends, a repair is scheduled, documentation follows. The system assumes that risk becomes real when it is visible or formally logged.

Awaab’s Law challenges that assumption.

By the time mould is visible on a wall, it is rarely an early-stage issue. Moisture imbalance, inadequate ventilation, thermal bridging or occupancy factors have often been present for weeks.

This raises an uncomfortable governance question: if risk can be identified earlier, should it be?

The technology now exists to monitor environmental conditions continuously. Sensors can track humidity, temperature and air quality in real time. Algorithms can flag patterns consistent with emerging mould risk weeks before physical signs appear. Automated alerts can escalate properties where thresholds are breached, enabling prioritisation based on vulnerability and severity rather than queue position.

In this model, maintenance is no longer triggered solely by complaint. It is informed by data.

The implications are significant. Proactive interventions (ventilation adjustments, heating optimisation, targeted resident guidance) can be deployed before a property crosses into statutory hazard territory. Surveyors can arrive equipped with the right information, reducing repeat visits and improving the likelihood of first-time resolution.

Environmental data can create a time-stamped audit trail from initial risk detection through to remediation, strengthening a landlord’s ability to demonstrate “all reasonable steps” if challenged by the Housing Ombudsman or the courts.

But the real shift is philosophical. If the law demands prevention, proof and pace, then reactive maintenance alone begins to look structurally fragile. Not necessarily negligent, but exposed. As the tools to reduce uncertainty become more accessible, reliance on visibility and tenant reporting as primary triggers may increasingly be viewed as insufficient.

The sector now faces a choice. Treat Awaab’s Law as a compliance exercise, tightening response times and refining documentation, or see it as a catalyst to redesign how housing risk is understood and managed.

The uncomfortable question is not whether digital monitoring platforms can help. It is whether, in a regulatory environment that prioritises foresight and evidence, failing to adopt more proactive systems could itself become a governance risk.