Awaab’s Law: Fixing the Symptom or Solving the Cause?
Executive Summary
Awaab’s Law sets strict new deadlines for landlords to fix damp and mould, but it never explains how to prevent it for good. Most will clean, paint, and ventilate faster instead of smarter. The real issue isn’t maintenance or lifestyle – it’s materials. Moisture-sensitive walls and finishes make mould inevitable, no matter how well tenants behave or how quickly landlords respond.
This paper breaks down what the law actually says, what it misses, and why the long-term answer lies in using truly inert, vapour-open, mineral-based systems that work with moisture rather than against it. If the construction industry applied this principle from the start, tragedies like Awaab Ishak’s would never happen again.
Key Takeaways
Awaab’s Law defines timelines, not technical solutions.
Mould prevention is a materials issue, not a lifestyle issue.
Only vapour-open, water-inert systems can deliver permanent compliance.
Awaab’s Law: Technical Review and Material Implications
Purpose
To look at what the new regulations really ask of landlords, how current repair methods meet (or miss) those duties, and what the physical evidence says about long-term prevention of damp and mould.
My Position and Perspective
I work with Ramco Industries UK, developing non-combustible mineral systems – mainly Hilux calcium silicate boards and Terrix mineral finishes. Our focus is on solving fire, moisture, and mould as one system, not separate issues.
I know I’m not a neutral voice in this. I believe in these products because I’ve seen what they do. The data and testing are clear: mineral, vapour-open systems stop mould and damp at the source while meeting the highest fire standards.
Over the years, the building industry has rightly focused on fire safety, but that’s often meant more layers, barriers, and coatings – systems that trap moisture rather than manage it. We’ve ended up with homes that are technically fire-safe but prone to condensation and mould. This paper isn’t about selling anything. It’s about showing that the solution already exists; we just need to start using the right materials.
I’m genuinely glad to see this law finally in place. It’s a long-overdue step that puts tenants’ health and safety first. But despite its good intentions, it’s still vague in one crucial area – how to actually fix the problem. Unless the people responsible for carrying out these repairs understand what really causes damp and mould, and how to prevent it properly, the same issues will keep coming back. Many will just work harder to hide the symptoms. Some will think it’s impossible. It isn’t.
Background
Before working in system development, I spent about a year and a half in local-authority maintenance (2018–2019), dealing with roofing repairs and damp reports across social housing. Almost everyone in maintenance handled mould cases – it was constant. The routine fix was always the same: wash the area down, apply mould-resistant paint, and move on. It looked better for a while, but the mould always came back. That experience shaped how I see the problem: the issue isn’t neglect, it’s materials. Unless the wall system changes, Awaab’s Law will just make people paint faster.
Part of the job also involved trying to change living habits – reminding tenants to open a window in the morning, clear clutter, avoid drying clothes on radiators, and wipe down condensation. Those are good habits, but they don’t solve the root cause. People still have to live – cook, bathe, breathe, and dry clothes indoors, especially in winter. Even the cleanest home creates humidity every day. That’s why housing materials need to work with moisture, not against it – absorbing and releasing vapour safely instead of trapping it inside the walls.
1. What the Law Actually Changes
From 27 October 2025, every social landlord must investigate reports of damp or mould within ten working days, make a property safe within five, and fix emergency health or safety hazards within twenty-four hours. If they can’t, they must move the tenant out and pay for temporary housing.
That’s a major shift in accountability. For the first time, speed and documentation are legally defined. But the guidance never explains how a wall is supposed to be made permanently safe. It simply says the work must “remove the hazard and prevent it recurring.” That leaves interpretation wide open.
Accountability and Recurrence
For the first time, Awaab’s Law makes landlords directly responsible not just for fixing visible mould, but for preventing it from coming back. If a property is “made safe” but the problem returns, the landlord could be in breach of contract. This changes everything. Painting over mould might meet the 5-day rule, but if it comes back six months later, that’s no longer maintenance – it’s proof the property was never safe. From now on, recurrence itself could mean non-compliance.
2. What the Document Really Means
When you strip away the legal language, three points stand out:
It links health impacts to humidity, ventilation, and insulation – not “lifestyle.”
It focuses on preventing recurrence, not just cleaning up.
It puts responsibility on landlords to act on structural defects or material failures.
Simply put: if a wall keeps getting wet, painting it again doesn’t meet the spirit of the law.
3. How Landlords Are Likely to Respond
Most councils and housing associations will stick to what they’ve always done: clean it, paint it, maybe install a fan. It ticks the 24-hour and 5-day boxes, it photographs well for audit, and it’s cheap. But anyone who’s worked in responsive repairs knows what happens next – twelve months later, the black patches are back, sometimes worse.
The reason isn’t neglect; it’s physics. Gypsum and most fire-grade silicate boards absorb moisture. Once water gets in, mould spores grow again behind the paint. No amount of biocide stops that once the substrate is wet.
4. What the Evidence Says About Materials
| Material | Vapour Behaviour | Organic Content | Typical Result in Damp Environments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gypsum plaster / board | Vapour-tight, hygroscopic | Yes (paper + binders) | Rapid regrowth under paint |
| Fibre-cement | Semi-porous, cellulose reinforced | Yes | Dark staining, long drying time |
| Fire-grade calcium silicate (Promat, etc.) | Hygroscopic; optimised for heat, not moisture | Usually no | Absorbs water; spalling or efflorescence |
| Mineral silicate coating (Keim, Remmers) | Vapour-open | No | Good surface only; depends on base |
| Calcium-silicate wall lining (Hilux type) | Vapour-open, water-inert | No | Permanent dryness; no mould growth |
The last category – true calcium-silicate linings with mineral coatings – are the only materials that are both non-absorbent and vapour-open. They let moisture escape but don’t hold it, which stops mould forming in the first place.
5. A Material Problem, Not a Lifestyle One
There’s a common idea that damp and mould are caused by how people live – cooking, drying clothes, or not opening windows. But that’s missing the point. Even in spotless, well-ventilated homes, humidity is constant.
Expecting tenants to prevent mould in moisture-sensitive buildings is like selling a car whose brakes only work if you press them just right. Safety shouldn’t depend on luck or perfect behaviour; it should be built in. If a wall system grows mould under normal use, it’s the system that’s defective, not the tenant. The same reliability we expect from brakes, wiring, or fire systems should apply to building materials.
Leaks will always happen, roofs fail, pipes burst, seals age, but when buildings are made from inert, mineral materials, a leak only affects the small area around it. With gypsum or paper-faced boards, moisture spreads through the surface and behind the paint, feeding mould far beyond the original problem. With true calcium silicate, you fix the leak, dry the spot, and it’s done – no replacement, no hidden spores, no spreading contamination. Inert materials don’t decay or support biological growth. That’s real resilience.
And as modern homes move toward passive design, sealed tighter than ever before for energy efficiency, the risk multiplies. Excellent insulation without vapour permeability traps moisture inside. The result is predictable: condensation, mould, and eventual decay. Mineral-based systems solve that by doing both – keeping heat in while letting moisture escape naturally. These systems already exist, they’re certified, and they’re available today. The answer is simple: use the right materials from the start.
6. Conclusion
The law sets deadlines, not methods. On paper, compliance will be easy. Real compliance, stopping the problem for good, depends on whether materials are water-inert, vapour-open, and free of organic content. Right now, that points to the small family of mineral-silicate systems already available in the UK. Used properly, they could eliminate the conditions that caused the Awaab Ishak tragedy.
The goal isn’t to criticise – it’s to help councils, housing providers, and contractors meet the spirit of Awaab’s Law with real, lasting solutions.
Thanks,
Luke Smith
Research and Development Manager, Ramco Industries UK