What counts as a hazard under Awaab's Law (the person-centred test)

The single most important thing to understand: Awaab's Law does not require a formal HHSRS category 1 score. It uses a person-centred test — whether the hazard poses a significant risk of harm to this household. ¹

The definitions that decide cases

Significant hazard

A hazard that poses a significant risk of harm to the health or safety of an occupier of the social home. ¹

Significant risk of harm

A risk of harm to an occupier's health or safety that a reasonable lessor with the relevant knowledge would take steps to make safe as a matter of urgency. ¹

Social home

Social housing (not shared ownership) let by a registered provider of social housing under a lease to which section 10A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies. ¹

Social landlord

A local authority social landlord or a private registered provider of social housing (e.g. a housing association registered with the Regulator of Social Housing). ¹

Relevant safety work

Any required work to make a property safe that is not cladding work. ¹

Concretely: the same patch of mould can be out of scope for a healthy adult and in scope for a household with an asthmatic child, a premature baby, an older occupant or someone with a respiratory condition. Vulnerability is part of the test, so always state health conditions in the original report — and keep them in your evidence pack.

All five conditions must hold for a hazard to be in scope

The root-cause rule is significant: where mould results from a structural deficiency the landlord controls — missing insulation, no trickle vents, a failed damp proof course — the landlord must fix the cause, not just repaint the wall. Guidance examples include installing mechanical ventilation or effective insulation. ¹ And "landlord's control" is broad: if the defect is in one of the landlord's properties but the mould appears in a neighbouring home they also let, it is still in scope.

Edge cases worth knowing

Out of scope in practice: condensation driven purely by tenant behaviour with no structural contribution (the "damage caused by tenant's breach" condition), hazards the landlord has no responsibility for, and anything below the significant/emergency threshold — though ordinary repair duties and the Safety and Quality standard still apply. Behaviour-vs-structure arguments are where most disputes die, which is why a competent investigator's written findings matter so much.

Sources