Failure to maintain appropriate standards can expose institutions to significant liability, particularly where health hazards such as mould, Legionella bacteria or asbestos are present. Recent developments, including Awaab’s Law in England, the increasing use of electric vehicles (EVs), e-bikes and e-scooters, and heightened awareness of security risks, have raised expectations around compliance and governance. As a result, proactive risk management and effective maintenance regimes are now essential for institutions operating student accommodation across all four nations.
Legal framework and duties
Institutions providing student accommodation must navigate a complex framework of statutory duties, regulatory requirements and common law obligations. While housing and health and safety law is devolved, the underlying principles are broadly consistent across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in that accommodation must be safe, maintained, and free from hazards that pose a risk to health.
It is important to note that some of the statutory housing quality regimes referred to in this article, including Awaab’s Law in England, the Welsh Housing Quality Standard and proposed Scottish repair regulations, are primarily directed at social housing and, in some cases, the private rented sector. Student accommodation provided by universities and further education colleges will only rarely fall within the definition of social housing for these purposes. Accordingly, such regimes will not usually apply directly to institutional student accommodation, although they are increasingly likely to be treated by regulators, courts and claimants as setting the benchmark for reasonable standards of investigation, response and remediation.
Damp and mould regulation and Awaab’s law
England
Awaab’s Law was introduced following a high-profile tragedy linked to mould exposure. Awaab Ishaak, a two-year-old child living in social housing in Rochdale, died in December 2020 due to acute airway oedema caused by prolonged exposure to black mould in his home. His father brought a claim against the housing association landlord, which acknowledged failures to recognise and address the health risks posed by the mould. The media and public attention that followed the case led directly to legislative change.
In England, section 10A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 now implies into all social housing tenancies a requirement that landlords will comply with prescribed requirements when responding to relevant hazards.
Since October 2025, the duties on landlords in scope include:
- An obligation to address all emergency hazards and all damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk to occupants within fixed time limits from when the hazard was reported to the landlord or the landlord otherwise became aware of it.
- Emergency hazards (not limited to damp and mould) are those that pose an immediate and significant risk of harm to the health and safety of the occupants and must be investigated and made safe within 24 hours.
- If damp and mould present a potentially significant (but not emergency) hazard to the health and safety of occupants, it must be investigated within 10 working days of awareness, with relevant safety work undertaken within 5 working days of the investigation concluding.
The initial focus is on emergency and damp and mould hazards, with the regime expected to expand to cover a broader range of housing hazards during 2026 and 2027.
While universities and FE colleges will not generally be operating social housing, those providing halls of residence or other residential accommodation in England will nevertheless be expected to respond promptly to reports of hazards, investigate appropriately and conduct remedial works within prescribed timescales, reflecting the standards now set by the social housing regime.
Wales
In Wales, duties relating to damp and mould arise primarily through the Welsh Housing Quality Standard (WHQS) and existing fitness and environmental health regimes. These impose obligations to maintain safe, habitable accommodation but do not currently prescribe the statutory response deadlines introduced in England.
While WHQS will not usually apply directly to student accommodation provided by universities or FE colleges, it provides an important reference point when assessing reasonable standards of maintenance and response.
Scotland
The proposed Investigation and Commencement of Repair (Scotland) Regulations 2026 will impose timescales for both social and private landlords to investigate and repair certain types of hazards that present a significant risk to their tenants’ health and safety. These regulations are set to be enforced from 6 October 2026 and will form the Scottish equivalent to Awaab’s Law south of the border. Specific requirements surrounding damp and mould will be the starting point with other qualifying hazards being introduced over time.
While universities and FE colleges providing student accommodation are unlikely to fall directly within scope, the principles and timescales set out are likely to influence expectations around reasonable response and repair.
Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland, landlords continue to operate under existing statutory duties, including those set out in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which defines the criteria for fitness for human habitation, along with other related regulatory requirements. The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 provides the principal framework for social housing governance in Northern Ireland, defines the powers and responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and sets out the regulatory structure for housing associations. This legislation does not extend to accommodation provided by universities or FE colleges.
While Awaab’s Law does not apply in Northern Ireland, it is reasonable to anticipate that Stormont may introduce similar measures in due course and, in the meantime, it increasingly represents a useful indicator of what may be viewed as reasonable landlord behaviour. As a result, tenants and their advisers may still rely on the English standards persuasively, when seeking timely and effective responses to disrepair, while recognising that any formal claims must be based on Northern Ireland’s existing housing law.
Occupiers’ liability
Across the UK, occupiers’ liability legislation imposes a duty of care on those who control premises to take reasonable steps to ensure that lawful visitors, including students, are safe.
In England and Wales, the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 establishes a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure visitors, which includes occupants, are reasonably safe when using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be there. Similar duties arise in Scotland and Northern Ireland under the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957.
Universities and FE colleges owe this duty to students living in halls or residential accommodation that they provide and must take reasonable steps to protect them from harm.
Health and safety legislation
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, together with the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, requires institutions to protect the health and safety of employees, students and others affected by their activities. This duty extends to student accommodation where this is under the institution’s control.
This means having appropriate policies, risk assessments, maintenance systems and monitoring arrangements in place.
Housing and Environmental Health enforcement
Local authorities across the UK have powers to assess residential accommodation for health and safety hazards.
In England and Wales, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based assessment tool used by Environmental Health Officers to identify hazards that could affect residents or visitors, including damp and mould, excess cold, structural instability and fire risks.
Where serious hazards are identified, councils may serve improvement notices requiring remedial works within set timescales (often 28 days) or, in more serious cases, prohibition orders restricting use of all or part of a building.
While the precise enforcement mechanisms differ in Scotland and Northern Ireland, local authority intervention, enforcement notices and restrictions on use are common across all jurisdictions.
Failure to comply with regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action, civil claims and reputational damage.
Key hazards and associated health risks
Mould and damp
Risks:
Exposure to damp and mould can lead to a range of illnesses and diseases. The most common are respiratory conditions such as asthma, chronic bronchitis and rhinitis, but exposure has also been linked to skin conditions, neurological symptoms and adverse mental health effects.
Legal and risk implications:
Delays in investigating or remediating damp and mould can lead to regulatory sanctions as well as civil claims for illness, pain and suffering. Claims have the potential to be of high value particularly where vulnerability or prolonged exposure is alleged. As we have looked at, while statutory response times currently apply only in England, expectations around prompt investigation and remediation are rising across all UK jurisdictions.
Legionella bacteria
Risks:
Legionellosis is a collective term for diseases caused by legionella bacteria, including the most serious Legionnaires’ disease, as well as less serious conditions such as Pontiac fever and Lochgoilhead fever. Legionnaire’s disease is a potentially fatal form of pneumonia, and everyone is susceptible to infection. Infection occurs through inhalation of contaminated water droplets from systems such as hot and cold-water supplies, showers and cooling systems.
Legal and risk implications:
Institutions must ensure that water systems are effectively managed and controlled. While routine testing is not always required, temperature monitoring is a key preventative measure.
Health and safety legislation, including Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regulations, applies across the UK and imposes demanding compliance obligations.
Institutions should follow guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive, including the Approved Code of Practice L8 – The Control of Legionella Bacteria in Water Systems, which is recognised and enforced throughout the UK, including by HSENI in Northern Ireland.
Asbestos
Risks:
Many older university and FE college buildings, including residential accommodation, contain asbestos and there are various parts of buildings that may well have been constructed or refurbished using asbestos-containing materials. Where asbestos is disturbed or in poor condition, exposure can lead to serious diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. These conditions often develop many years after exposure and can be fatal.
Legal and risk implications:
Institutions must comply with common law duties and statutory requirements including the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and the Control of Asbestos Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, which apply to non-domestic premises and the common parts of multi-occupancy residential buildings. Duties are owed to anyone who may be affected, including students, staff and contractors.
In practical terms, this requires robust asbestos management arrangements, including up-to-date asbestos registers, regular inspections, risk assessments and appropriate remediation where materials pose a risk. Where exposure exceeds that of background levels of asbestos in the atmosphere (i.e. the number of fibres in the general atmosphere), it is often difficult to defend claims alleging breach of duty or negligence. Courts expect clear evidence of proactive management and compliance with current guidance.
EV charging, e-bikes, e-scooters and fire risks
Risks:
Electric vehicle fires are statistically less frequent than petrol or diesel vehicle fires, but when they occur, they are often far more severe. In addition to cars and vans, universities and FE colleges are increasingly encountering fire risks associated with e-bikes and e-scooters, particularly within student accommodation. Key risk factors include:
- Thermal runaway in lithium-ion batteries, with fires reaching extreme temperatures, lasting for hours and releasing toxic compounds including hydrogen fluoride and cyanide.
- Charging-related incidents, particularly in confined or poorly ventilated spaces such as underground car parks, cycle stores, corridors and bedrooms.
- Use of incompatible, poor-quality or modified chargers, which is a common factor in e-bike and e-scooter fires.
- Battery damage or degradation, often linked to second-hand devices, unauthorised modifications or prolonged use.
- Re-ignition risks, even after fires appear to have been extinguished, lithium-ion batteries can reignite.
- Infrastructure limitations, especially in older buildings lacking modern fire suppression, compartmentation and ventilation.
Legal and risk implications:
The charging of electric vehicles, e-bikes and e-scooters presents particular risks. The risks associated with e-bikes and e-scooters are challenging, as they are often charged inside living spaces, escape routes or communal areas, significantly increasing the risk to life in the event of fire. Fires involving smaller mobility devices can develop rapidly and with little warning, often while occupants are asleep.
Institutions should therefore consider regular reviews of EV, e-bike and e-scooter charging arrangements, alongside staff and student guidance on safe charging practices. Measures may include:
- Designated, fire-resistant charging areas away from sleeping accommodation and escape routes.
- Prohibitions or controls on charging within bedrooms or corridors.
- Use of approved chargers and equipment only.
- Enhanced detection, suppression and ventilation in charging areas.
- Clear policies, communication and student awareness campaigns.
- Fire safety engineering input where charging infrastructure is expanded or retrofitted.
As the use of electrically powered vehicles and devices continues to grow, expectations around governance, fire risk assessment and enforcement in this area are likely to increase.
Security risks in student accommodation
Risks:
Recent high-profile incidents have highlighted security vulnerabilities in student accommodation. In November 2025, footage circulated widely showing a violent robbery at a private student accommodation block in Leicester, where victims were assaulted and forced to transfer money and surrender belongings. While the property was not owned or managed by a university, the incident underscores the reputational and welfare risks associated with student safety, including in privately operated accommodation.
Legal and risk implications:
Universities and FE colleges may face complaints and claims where intruders gain access through unsecured doors, malfunctioning access controls or propped-open fire exits, or where students access unsafe or restricted areas such as rooftops.
Institutions should remain alert to these risks and consider proportionate measures to improve physical security, access control, monitoring, maintenance and student awareness, recognising that expectations around safeguarding continue to rise.
Conclusion
The maintenance of student halls and residential accommodation is not simply a facilities or estates issue – it is a legal, health, financial and reputational priority for universities and further education colleges across the UK.
While regulatory frameworks differ between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the core expectation is consistent being that institutions must take a risk-managed, proactive approach to maintaining safe and habitable accommodation for students.
Emerging challenges such as EV fire risks and highly publicised security incidents illustrate the evolving nature of risk in student accommodation. A proactive, integrated approach, combining effective maintenance, risk assessment, fire and building safety engineering, security controls, clear communication and student awareness, will be essential in safeguarding students and managing liability in an increasingly complex risk environment.
