7 things we learned from the post-Grenfell evacuation laws guidance

They must also share information with the fire service, create an evacuation plan for the entire building and carry out regular reviews of these three documents. 

The rules will apply to two types of flats: blocks that are 18 metres or seven storeys or higher, and smaller buildings over 11 metres or five storeys that have simultaneous evacuation strategies in place.

Earlier this year the government released a fact-sheet setting out the key elements of the regulations.

On Tuesday, it released more detailed guidance explaining the responsibilities of responsible persons, advising them how to meet these responsibilities and the role of other groups including residents and fire authorities.

Here are Inside Housing’s seven key learning points from the guidance.

1. Responsible persons should regularly seek out ‘relevant residents’ and have policies to resolve unclear situations, like subletting

Identifying relevant residents is the first stage of the residential PEEPs process and will be a legal requirement for responsible persons from April.

The term refers to the people whom the laws are seeking to protect: residents whose main home is the high-rise building and who would find it difficult to leave a building themselves without help if a fire broke out.

Guidance states that responsible persons must use “reasonable endeavours” to identify relevant residents, including, as a minimum, at the point the person moves in and every 12 months afterwards.

It recommends responsible persons have a policy on resolving cases where it is not clear where a tenant’s main home is, which could take into account how long people are staying in the home and whether this will be longer than the PEEPs process.

Responsible persons are also advised to consider the cases of subletters who are not on the contract, with advice suggesting leaseholders should foot the bill instead.

The guidance states: “While this is for RPs to consider on a case-by-case basis, it is very likely to be reasonable for the building owner/manager to determine that all costs, including administrative costs, arising from residential PEEPs for a resident who occupies a sublet flat should fall on the leaseholder.”

2. Other people than the resident may be involved in the process, but how responsible persons work with them depends on their specific role

The government-issued advice stresses that consent is key and no residents can be forced to take part in the residential PEEPs process.

But it is also clear that RPs should be proactive, by giving people who may be covered by residential PEEPs “every opportunity” to be involved, and explaining the fire safety benefits of the process.

Responsible persons may also work with others who are close to the relevant person in certain circumstances, and the guidance sets out clearly the different roles that supporters could take.

For tenants younger than 18 years old or who have a cognitive impairment preventing them from engaging with the PEEPs process, a representative such as a parent or guardian, or a person with lasting power of attorney, is allowed to act on their behalf, meaning they can provide instructions on several key parts of the process.

There is also the option of a relevant resident nominating a “trusted person” such as their next of kin to work with responsible persons, though in these cases the engagement must involve both parties at the same time and the RP must get consent from the relevant person during important parts of the process.

3. Residents are likely to face costs for mitigation measures if responsible persons will not pay for them and the majority of tenants in the building are not seen to benefit

After finding and working with the people who need to be part of the residential PEEPs process, responsible persons have three things to do.

They must carry out a person-centred fire risk assessment (PCFRA), agree an evacuation statement if the resident consents and roll out any mitigation measures seen to be “reasonable and proportionate”.

Under the regulations, responsible persons are only expected to implement these “reasonable and proportionate measures” to reduce risk, and do not have to roll these out if it is deemed that the safety measures are only needed if a tenant would pay for them and the tenant declines to pay.

The person paying for the measures is part of how “reasonable and proportionate” is defined, and if social housing providers are responsible persons they should ensure renters do not have to pay if the landlord is already supported by the Residential Social Housing Fund.

The guidance states that costs for mitigating measures can only be rolled out to everyone living in the building if the majority will benefit and leases allow.

Residents may have to pay if the responsible person decides not to and decides only the tenant would benefit from the move, though they should consider if residents could benefit from a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) support and if the residents in question are long-term residents.

The advice also reveals that three things are “extremely unlikely” to be seen as reasonable and proportionate. 

These are: actions inside a flat that would compromise the building’s compartmentation, measures in common areas that could harm other residents or lead to a huge rise in service charges, and a responsible person employing staff to support evacuations such as a waking watch.

In addition to this, guidance on the PCFRAs states the responsible persons should explain to residents both what the report covers and what personal information they may need to share, in order to get a good enough understanding of the safety risks.

However, tenants will not have to share any medical records or specific information with the responsible person and there is no requirement that they must use a specialist to carry out these assessments, with guidance acknowledging many landlords and managers already have good systems in place.

4. Responsible persons must review key parts of the process every 12 months

Regular reviews of the residential PEEPs process by RPs is another key part of the regulations. Guidance states that these reviews should take place a year after the emergency evacuation statement, or after the risk assessment if no statement has been agreed.

The 12-month cycle also restarts whenever a review is triggered for a different reason, such as if there are major changes to the building that could affect the risks or evacuation statement, or if the resident makes a reasonable request. 

The government also advises building managers and landlords to do these reviews after any planned drills or emergencies to make sure the process is working and see if any changes could be made, especially if safety measures did not work properly.

5. Responsible persons should be clear with residents about the benefits and risks of sharing information with fire services

As well as the above, responsible persons have a duty to share four pieces of information about residents covered by residential PEEPs with their local fire and rescue authority services, so long as they have explicit agreement from these tenants to do so.

These are: the flat number, floor number, information about how much help a resident would need to escape the building and whether the person has an emergency evacuation statement.

This is so firefighters in an emergency can find more vulnerable residents and send them assistance to help them leave their homes.

Guidance is clear that responsible persons should explain to residents the potential benefits of sharing this information, including its usefulness if they need to evacuate, but also make them aware of potential risks, such as potential unauthorised access to data.

Landlords and managers should also explain that not giving consent does not mean a resident would not be rescued during an emergency, and take care along with the fire service to make sure the data is safe, including potentially “coding” it.

It is also up to the fire service whether the information is shared digitally or in a hard copy, and responsible persons should ask them how they want to access it.

Digital storage is preferred in guidance as it is easier and quicker to update, and fire services should be working towards this, but responsible persons must install and maintain a secure information box if firefighters want a physical copy.

6. Building evacuation plans should be aligned with fire risk assessments and record the presence of vulnerable residents

In addition to working with individual residents, RPs covered by the regulations need to put together an evacuation plan for the whole building.

This should also be shared with fighters, added to any secure box in the flats, and reviewed in 12-month cycles.

The plan must include three key pieces of information: a copy of instructions to residents, whether there are tenants who are covered by residential PEEPs and information on any other evacuation processes in the building.

Guidance states the plan will also need to be aligned with the fire risk assessment for the building and include any whole-building measures that have been taken following risk assessments under the PEEPs process.

It also gives an example of what a simple plan could look like and other information it may include, such as the presence of emergency lifts and floor plans.

7. Responsible persons found to be non-compliant with the residential PEEPs process face enforcement notices

As well as setting out how to comply with the new regime, the guidance is clear on who will enforce these new duties and the sanctions responsible persons could face if they are found not to have followed the rules.

The regulations fall under the scope of the Fire Safety Order, which allows for enforcement notices to be served on non-compliant responsible persons by enforcing authorities, such as fire and rescue services.

Guidance also warns that in high rises, failing to carry out residential PEEPs processes effectively could be viewed as a failure of an ‘accountable person’ under the Building Safety Act 2022, meaning residents would be able to use the Residents Voice process to raise concerns about the evacuation systems in place.