For English social landlords under Awaab's Law

Awaab evidence packs before review pressure.

One source-linked view of clock status, missing proof, access history, tenant updates, and pack limits across the systems you already run.

Keep your existing repairs system. No compliance promise. A buyer can see the first useful pack shape in minutes.

Request a 14-day pilot See the live demo ->

First pack shape in minutes
No rip-out of your repairs system
14-day pilot on approved sample data

Operational review and evidence preparation only; does not decide compliance or outcomes.

EVIDENCE GRID

Check gaps before review

Demo data

Real demo data, synthetic records; no tenant or customer data.
Case	Clock	Investigation	Resident update	Access	Pack
DEMO-001	At risk	Ready	Watch	Ready	Watch
DEMO-002	Overdue	Watch	Watch	At risk	Watch
DEMO-003	Watch	Ready	At risk	Watch	Ready
DEMO-004	Ready	Ready	Ready	Ready	Ready

Buyers see the case, clock, proof, access, and pack gaps first. The product supports review; it does not decide legal compliance or outcomes.

Public proof path

Follow the buyer evidence path

One public thread connects the homepage promise, guided synthetic demo, watermarked sample pack, and pilot request. No customer records or outcome claims are implied.

Phase 2 update

Phase 2 announced for Oct 2026: see what changes.

Your evidence is split before the clock starts

Repairs notes, complaints, inboxes, contractor updates, photos, no-access records, and board questions sit in different places. EvidenceTrail gives the review team one source-linked evidence layer around them.

Clock risk
See source-mapped clocks, next due milestones, and overdue or at-risk cases.
Evidence gaps
Spot missing investigation, communication, contractor, access, and pack evidence.
Review-ready packs
Prepare conservative board, complaint-handling, or internal governance-style material for review.

Estimate evidence work before software cost

We do not publish invented savings claims. Put your own staff time, complaint cost, repeat works, and review pressure beside a scoped pilot fee.

The cost of one un-evidenced case

Staff hours reconstructing the timeline from emails, logs, inboxes, and photos.
Complaint handling, plus any Ombudsman orders or remedy payments that follow.
Repeat works and disrepair exposure when the evidence trail is incomplete.
Board, RSH, and reputational time when proof cannot be produced on request.

Cost categories vary by landlord. EvidenceTrail helps you assemble and review evidence; it does not decide legal liability, compensation, or outcomes.

The cost of being ready

A 14-day pilot with agreed sample data, then annual tiers from £30k.

Use the estimator to make the buying conversation concrete before a demo call.

See what a missing record costs you See pilot pricing ->

A thin evidence layer, not another system of record

It joins four questions that cut across repairs, complaints, inboxes, and contractors: what happened, which clock is live, what proof is missing, and who reviews the pack.

Repairs source Awareness and job history

Import report dates, inspections, safety works, access attempts, and job notes.

Complaints source Escalation and review context

Connect complaint stage, promised actions, review owner, and board-report needs.

Tenant communication source Messages and proof requests

Track tenant updates, vulnerability notes, proof-link responses, and redaction status.

Contractor evidence source Works, photos, and no-access trail

Pull contractor updates, visit outcomes, supporting photos, and unresolved blockers.

What the 14-day pilot proves

Start with sample case data, map the first workflow, and show the review team where evidence exists, where it is missing, and what can safely leave the room.

1 Import or map cases
Use CSV exports, saved mappings, shared inbox records, and source references.
2 Request proof
Send zero-login evidence links to tenants and contractors without internal access. Proof links ask for scoped evidence, not blame.
3 Export the pack
Review clock status, evidence gaps, redaction notes, and pack-readiness evidence.

Synthetic or approved data only — no live tenant records needed to start.
No rip-out — it sits beside your repairs, complaints, and inbox systems.
You control what is shared — redaction and review happen before any pack leaves.
First example packs in minutes — not a multi-month implementation.

Check if you are ready for a pilot ->

Why you can trust this page

Trust comes from source evidence, not theatre

“A strong correlation between poor records, protracted complaints and severe detriment.”
Housing Ombudsman — Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management

Primary UK sources stay visible. There are no fabricated customer logos, no invented savings claims, and no compliance guarantees. Every sample pack carries citations, an integrity hash, and known gaps.

What the product can say It helps teams organise source records, evidence gaps, proof requests, and pack-review material.
What it must not claim It does not guarantee legal compliance, regulator acceptance, Ombudsman findings, procurement approval, or case outcomes.

See a real sample evidence pack — with its integrity hash and explicit known-gaps list →

Right fit

Registered providers, ALMOs, and council housing teams.
Teams with fragmented repairs, complaints, inbox, and contractor evidence.
Leaders who need board, complaint-handling, or governance-style review material.

Not right for

Buyers seeking a full repairs-management replacement.
Teams seeking legal advice or compliance guarantees.
Private landlords outside the current social-housing scope.

Choose your landlord path

Start from the operating model that matches the buyer group. Each path keeps the language to role-specific operational review rather than legal advice or outcome promises.

Registered provider route

For housing associations and private registered providers aligning repairs, complaints, compliance, and board evidence.

Registered provider fit

ALMO route

For arm's-length management organisations that need group reporting, council governance context, and clear operating boundaries.

Request ALMO discussion via demo requests

Local authority route

For council housing teams coordinating repairs, complaints, tenant contact, scrutiny reporting, and information-governance review.

Local authority fit

For procurement, legal, and information governance

Buying-room materials are written for review, not show — security answers, DPA and DPIA inputs, redaction, audit export, and incident handling stated plainly, with current status separated from roadmap. The pilot runs on synthetic or approved data, so information governance can review before any live tenant data is in scope.

Trust centre

Control posture, current status, and production launch gates.

Review control posture

Security questionnaire

Pre-answered buyer security questions for your reviewer.

Read buyer answers

Data processing & DPA

Article 28 inputs, DPIA posture, and what is still required.

Review data-processing posture

Procurement pack

Buying-room evidence and the path from review to pilot decision.

Open the pack

Four steps to pilot scope

See it working, check the commercial shape, hand trust material to reviewers, then agree the pilot boundary.

Buyer questions

Does it replace our repairs system?

No. It is an overlay for statutory-clock visibility and evidence preparation.

Does it guarantee compliance?

No. It supports evidence gathering, operational review, and pack preparation.

What can we see in a demo?

A synthetic case moving from report to gaps, proof requests, and a review-ready pack.

Book an Awaab's Law demo Read the buyer FAQ

EvidenceTrail supports evidence gathering, statutory-clock visibility, operational review, and conservative pack preparation. It does not guarantee legal compliance, regulator acceptance, Ombudsman findings, or litigation outcomes.