< Back to Feature Articles
FEATURE ARTICLE

11 May 2026

Looking at PEEPs

On 6 April 2026, the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 (Regulations) came into force and introduced obligations on building owners and managers (as Responsible Persons) in high-rise, and higher risk, residential buildings, to assess and address the specific fire safety concerns of vulnerable residents who would have difficulty in evacuating a building by themselves in the event of a fire.  

The Regulations were prepared in response to recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower Phase 1 Inquiry Report.  

The government has published guidance for Responsible Persons (RPs) on the implementation of Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs), as well as a number of factsheets on Residential PEEPs as well as guidance and a toolkit for RPs. 

What and who do the Regulations apply to?

The Regulations will apply to all buildings in England that are high-rise residential buildings containing two or more sets of domestic premises, and which are either: at least 18 metres above ground-level/have at least seven storeys, or more than 11 metres in height and have a simultaneous evacuation strategy in place.  

Relevant residents are those for whom their domestic premises in the building is their only or principal residence and who would have difficulty evacuating a building without assistance in the event of a fire. This may be due to a physical mobility or a cognitive condition and includes those which may be a permanent issue or temporary (such as a broken leg). The government guidance provides examples of  a person who habitually needs a wheelchair, a blind person, a person who is unable to go down several flights of steps or has other mobility difficulties, or a person who due to a cognitive condition may have difficulties understanding what to do in the event of a fire (for example, a learning disability or cognitive condition such as dementia). 

The Regulations place duties on RPs. These are anyone with control over the common parts of domestic premises and could be the owner, landlord, an occupier, a managing agent, or others and could be a number of these persons. 

It is worth noting that RPs cannot force a resident to engage in the PEEP process.

What do the Regulations require?

RPs (usually the building owner or manager) will be required to use reasonable endeavours to identify which relevant residents require a PEEP and then offer them one. It is for the RP to determine what is reasonable. Reasonable endeavours may include reviewing new tenant applications, visiting new tenants, calling tenants over a certain age to check concerns, contacting all residents, including questions in tenant surveys, resident meetings, and collating information from staff or contractors visiting homes for other reasons. 

It is worth noting that RPs cannot force a resident to engage in the PEEP process. Therefore, whilst the Regulations will expect RPs to make reasonable efforts to identify relevant residents (not just those who self-identify), RPs will need to proactively encourage the exploration of the PEEP process with residents in a creative, but not forceful manner.  

If the resident agrees to a PEEP, the RP will be required to offer a person-centred fire risk assessment (PCFRA), which can be prepared by trained staff through conversations with the resident or their representative. This must then be completed if the resident agreed and the RP must then facilitate conversations with the resident to ascertain the resident’s particular risks and identify how their fire safety/evacuation can be improved. The PCFRA can be incorporated into wider risk assessments that RPs may already complete so long as it includes the requirements in the Regulations for the PCFRA. 

The RP must then implement reasonable and proportionate measures to mitigate the risks identified during the PCFRA. In deciding whether a measure is reasonable and proportionate the RP will need to consider the feasibility and the impact of a proposed safety measure, taking into account factors such as the degree of risk to the relevant resident and others, the likely effectiveness of the mitigation, its practicality, and the potential benefit to the safety of all building occupants, and cost (discussed further below).  

Both the guidance and the toolkit provide examples of what may and may not be reasonable and proportionate. This is likely to be updated regularly as the government is asking RPs who find other solutions to share details of those so that they can be shared more widely. Current examples include additional fire drills and information about evacuation, fire safety checks and advice on reducing the likelihood of a fire (by RPs and fire services), upgrading fire doors, additional/alternative alarms, fire-resistant furniture/bedding/clothing, connection to remote monitoring systems, in-flat misters/sprinklers, or offering (but not forcing) relocation. Most examples focus on making the resident safer in their own home/alerting them to a fire, rather than evacuation, as this can be difficult to practically achieve ahead of fire service arrival where a resident has significant mobility issues. 

At present, fire safety legislation only makes RPs responsible for fire risk in communal parts of residential buildings. The government guidance explains that in the near future the legislation will be extended to include the fire safety risks within the relevant resident’s domestic premises. Because of this, the government recommends that the inside of domestic premises should be considered as part of PCFRAs now. 

Additionally, if the RP and resident agree, the information collected as part of the PCFRA should be used to prepare a written emergency evacuation statement to highlight what a resident should do in the event of a fire. If the resident provides their explicit consent to information being shared, that information can be shared with the relevant fire and rescue authority to assist in preparing any operational response in the unfortunate event of an evacuation being necessary. Government guidance indicates that only the absolutely necessary information should be shared with the fire and rescue services, and that the consent of the resident must be obtained beforehand, and in accordance with data protection legislation. 

Finally, a building emergency evacuation plan needs to be prepared covering the whole building that aligns with the building’s fire risk assessment. This must be shared with the local fire and rescue authority and placed in any secure information box. This must detail the evacuation strategy, whether there are residents with PCFRAs/emergency evacuation statements, and any other arrangements for evacuating the building. 

The completion of such risk assessments, emergency evacuation statements, and building emergency evacuation plans is not a task which should only be completed once. These Regulations, and indeed the government’s guidance on the same, places an ongoing duty on RPs to review these documents. The government guidance suggests that proactive conversations with residents should occur when a resident moves in, and annually, in addition to whenever a resident may request support.  

Costs that may follow the completion of a PEEP

Information published on the House of Commons Library webpage on 14 January 2026 suggests that the RP will determine who bears the cost of any mitigating measures implemented in consequence of a residential PEEP. The options of who could pay include:  

  1. the RP – if they consider it reasonable and proportionate for them to pay; 
  2. the relevant resident – if they are the only resident who will benefit from the measure. The RP should account for whether the relevant resident is eligible for means-tested Disabled Facilities Grant Support as it may cover some costs. If the relevant resident refused to pay, they would not be obliged to pay, and the RP would not be obliged to implement the mitigating measure; or 
  3. all residents of the building pay, but only if: 
    - the majority of residents in the building will benefit from the mitigating measure 
    - where leases permit the cost to be passed to residents 
    - if the mitigating measure has been agreed to as the result of a PCFRA that has been conducted for a relevant measure 
    - if the mitigating measure is new and not already required by other building safety legislation.  

This, in itself, may give rise to some challenge such as the expectation in Section 20(7) of the Equality Act 2010, that a person subject to a duty to make reasonable adjustments cannot transfer the cost of those adjustments onto the disabled person. There does appear to be a conflict between these two pieces of legislation. However, additionally and separately, a question also arises as to what an RP can do in a circumstance where the risk has been identified, a proposal to mitigate the hazard has been made, but the resident refuses or cannot afford the necessary changes. We would encourage organisations to seek legal advice in such scenarios.  

Funding for social housing providers?

In the event of the RP being a social housing provider, the provider may be able to access funding through the Residential PEEPs Social Housing Fund. Any social housing providers and housing associations who are supported by this fund should ensure that the costs of mitigating measures are not passed on to the residents of such social housing.  

However, please note, whilst the government have stated that funding will be provided, the details surrounding this fund and how to access it are rather minimal. 

The requirements of the new Residential PEEPs legislation is something that all RPs of high-rise and higher-risk residential buildings must be aware of in the drive towards improving the fire safety of disabled and vulnerable people. 

What should organisations be doing to comply?

The Regulations impose more robust and demanding fire safety responsibilities. The following actions are required by any RP that is responsible for buildings in scope: 

  • Organisations should identify which of its buildings are in scope. 
  • Organisations need a policy covering their PEEP approach. This should be consistent with the Guidance and Toolkit referred to above. It will likely also require an electronic system for information storage and tracking. 
  • Organisations need to ensure that staff are appropriately trained. Specialist training may be required in light of the requirements so that they staff can properly ascertain and assess the real risks posed to a resident and recommend appropriate solutions for those residents who are at risk and more vulnerable.  
  • Regulation 5 requires RPs to make reasonable efforts to identify relevant residents who may need a PEEP. Therefore, RPs cannot just rely on residents self-identifying. Organisations need to identify what information will be required to ascertain relevant residents and what information they already have, compile a database of potential residents, and start engaging in conversations with residents about what is happening and encouraging them to disclose if they need assistance. 
  • RPs should consider what position they will take on the cost of measures required, including a consideration of what its leases permit. 
  • RPs should also consider the type of communications it will send out to its residents, ensuring that this is user friendly and accessible for those who are vulnerable and/or have literacy issues and who may struggle reading English.  
  • Keeping records if all actions taken, all correspondence and all documents created, including instances where a relevant resident declines to engage with Residential PEEPs, or where an RP has undertaken reasonable endeavours to contact a resident but contact has ultimately not been made. 
  • Undertaking regular reviews. 

The requirements of the new Residential PEEPs legislation is something that all RPs of high-rise and higher-risk residential buildings must be aware of in the drive towards improving the fire safety of disabled and vulnerable people. 

Government guidance for RPs on the implementation of Residential PEEPs can be found here

If your organisation is impacted by these new Regulations and you need any support, please get in touch with Louise Mansfield or Sarah Orchard at Bevan Brittan. Email: louise.mansfield@bevanbrittan.com or sarah.orchard@bevanbrittan.com 

Louise Mansfield

Article written by
Louise Mansfield
Legal Director Bevan Brittan