High Court challenge on Government failure to implement Grenfell Inquiries recommendations on PEEPs

 From Bhatt Murply Solicitors

Bhatt Murphy clients issue High Court challenge to government failure to implement Grenfell Inquiry recommendations on personal emergency evacuation plans (‘PEEPs’) for disabled people

Bhatt Murphy Solicitors have issued an application for judicial review against the Secretary of State for the Home Department on behalf of Sarah Rennie, Georgie Hulme and CLADDAG, an organisation founded by Ms Rennie and Ms Hulme which campaigns for disabled leaseholders and tenants in residential buildings impacted by the building safety crisis.

The Claimants are seeking permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the Government’s refusal to implement October 2019 recommendations made by the Chair of the Grenfell Inquiry mandating PEEPs for all residents whose ability to self-evacuate in an emergency may be compromised.

Mark Scott and Joanna Khan at Bhatt Murphy act for the claimants.

 

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report: recommendations at paragraphs 33.22 (e) & (f):

“…the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law…to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans for all residents whose ability to self-evacuate may be compromised (such as persons with reduced mobility or cognition)” and

“…the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law to include up-to-date information about persons with reduced mobility and their associated PEEPs in the premises information box” (“the PEEPs recommendations”)

 

The The Claimants argue that the outcome of the PEEPs consultation (i.e. the Government decision not to implement the PEEPs recommendations) is unlawful, including because:

 

a.     The failure to implement PEEPs constitutes a breach of disabled residents’ right to life and to freedom from discrimination under Articles 2 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, under which the Home Secretary must have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination against disabled people;

b.     The consultation process was unfair, including because the Home Office held follow-up meetings with representatives of local authorities and housing associations after the consultation responses had been received, allowing concerns to be raised to which the Claimants and others had no opportunity to respond;

c.     The government has failed to understand the rationale behind the PEEPs recommendations: evidence heard by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry concerning the need for all residents to be able to evacuate in certain situations, even in buildings with a ‘stay-put’ strategy.

 

The Claimants have made an application for the court to consider the case urgently. They expect to hear in around September 2022 whether permission has been granted to proceed.

 

72 people died in the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017. A disproportionate number of those who died were disabled persons whose ability to evacuate via the sole means of escape, the single staircase, was compromised. There were no plans or arrangements in place to assist these residents to evacuate in the event of a fire

 

 

'Racist van' will not return without consultation following legal action threat

Solicitors Deighton Pierece Glynn issued the following statement this morning:

The Home Office have agreed never to run adverts telling migrants to go home again without consulting.

Following our letter to the Home Office, threatening legal action of the decision to pilot a campaign driving large vans around London which displayed messages telling migrants to ‘go home’, the Government has confirmed that if any further campaigns of a similar nature are planned, they would carry out a consultation with local authorities and community groups. The Government accepted that the purpose of consulting would be so that it could have ‘due regard’ to the effect a campaign of this nature would have on the communities living in the affected areas.

Our clients’ legal challenge was based on the Government’s failure to comply with the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. This duty requires the Government to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and harassment based on race and religion, as well as to foster good relations between people from different racial and religious groups. Due to the inflammatory nature of the campaign, as voiced by several prominent public figures including Vince Cable MP and the leaders of Brent and Redbridge Councils, the due regard duty was high, and a consultation should have been carried out before the pilot began so that the Government could have properly considered the effect of the campaign before deciding whether to go ahead.

The one week pilot has ended. However, the Government has provided an assurance that if the Home Office were to carry out any further campaigns of this nature it would have due regard to the effect this would have on migrants living in those communities and in so doing would carry out a consultation. Any such consultation would of course have to be meaningful.

One of our clients, Raymond Murray, commented:

 I’m very pleased the Home Office has seen sense and will do things differently in future, and hopefully they’ll never try a stunt like this again.

Refugee and Migrant Forum of East London (RAMFEL) and Migrant Rights Network (MRN) will be running a series of workshops across London to support those interested in campaigning against the Government’s anti-immigration policies. Solicitors from Deighton Pierce Glynn and Bhatt Murphy will be on the discussion panels. See here for further information.

The Claimants are represented by Louise Whitfield and Sasha Rozansky.

Register for the workshops HERE