Charles Amos: The hidden cost of Awaab’s Law

Charles Amos studied Political Theory at the University of Oxford and writes The Musing Individualist Substack.

Awaab’s Law requires social landlords to inspect a house for damp and mould within ten working days of being notified and for the situation to be made safe within five working days of the said inspection. It is due to come in via the Renter’s Rights Act for private landlords too. Awaab’s Law is a gross violation of private property and simply amounts to the dispossession of an element of ownership from the landlord; it will push up rents and diminish consumer choice at the lower end of the market too.

In Britain today around five per cent of dwellings have at least one room affected by mould, and, the English House Survey finds 21 per cent of private rented dwellings fail to meet ‘a decent standard’. The death of Awaab Ishak due to a respiratory condition caused by mould in 2020 is taken by many to be totemic of the terrible way many landlords neglect their tenants as displayed in the above figures. Irrespective of the poor condition of tenants, and, I will contend poor conditions are not all that bad later: a landlord who is forced to bleach his walls, or, rebuild them, when not in the tenancy agreement, has been dispossessed of an element of ownership over his house. Respecting private property requires such dispossession by the state on behalf of tenants is stopped.

Some will claim the good health of tenants should carve out the landlords’ rights. No. Imagine your poor next-door neighbour has mould growing in half of their house which will cost about £800 to fix. You happen to have some bricks, bleach and Polyfilla going spare which would be great for him to use; but you’d rather keep it for yourself. One night your neighbour decides he doesn’t want to pay for fixing his mould himself, so, he takes your bricks, bleach and Polyfilla to repair the mould and a couple of hundred pounds from your wallet for a tradesman to do the work. This is a clear violation of private property; indeed, theft. When the state forces a landlord to give up his money to pay for materials and labour for his tenant, they, similarly, violate his private property; indeed, fines follow for not repairing things. In neither instance does the poor health of the neighbour or tenant warrant dispossession.

It might be said the disanalogy is the landlord chooses to operate under Awaab’s Law, so, no violation of the landlords’ rights occurs. If an expat chooses to buy a house in Italy, aware the Mafia only lets them be painted in cream outside and inside, then he paints it pistachio inside and outside and the Mafia unconsensually paint it cream again one night, a wrongful use of his property is made. Similarly, landlords under Awaab’s Law who are unconsensually made to bleach their walls to remove mould by the state, even though they choose to undergo the risk of this, face a wrongful use of their property too. And: should it be claimed the need simpliciter of the tenant simply strips the landlord of his rights over his house, then, the same reasoning would have to unacceptably permit the poor next-door neighbour to take the bricks, bleach and money. Again, that’s wrong.

If tenants want damp and mould free living, they should negotiate it with their landlords themselves, or, simply move elsewhere and pay a bit more rent. Who wants to live in damp and mouldy housing though? Ideally no one does. However, some people, especially young people, will take the option of mouldy housing because it is a lot cheaper. According to the estate agent Micheal Anthony house prices fall by about 15 per cent due to moderate rising damp, meaning, taking housing to simply be made up of a discounted stream of future rents, rents are probably lower by that amount too. As well as taking away the option of cheap damp housing from people, Awaab’s Law will also restrict the rental supply further.

This is because landlords on the margin of supplying housing will not want to potentially incur the big costs that Awaab’s Law puts in place. Although the repair costs may not be large, if social landlords fail to meet the fifteen working days timetable they have to put their tenants up in hotels; this will be rolled out to private landlords too. A contracted rental supply will in turn increase rents for everyone; at a time when they are already at a record high of £1,385 a month outside of the capital. The real solution to high rents and poor conditions is not more state interference; rather, it remains the state removing planning regulation to get Britain building modern well insulated homes, Indeed, it is partly due to planning regulation strangling the creation of new homes that Britain has the oldest housing stock in Europe, along with all the damp associated with Victorian building.

Respecting private property requires Awaab’s Law is repealed and is fully stripped from the Renters’ Rights Act for private landlords. Tenants too should have the freedom to choose cheap damp housing over expensive dry accommodation. Labour ought to recognise the real solution to high rents and poor conditions is not more state interference; rather, it remains vast planning deregulation. Alas, though, whacking landlords is popular while building houses is not.