High Court challenge on PEEPs (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans) gets the go ahead

 From Disability News Service

Two campaigners have won permission from the high court to challenge the government’s refusal to ensure that all disabled people can safely evacuate from high-rise blocks of flats in emergencies.

Georgie Hulme and Sarah Rennie, co-founders of the disabled-led leaseholder action group Claddag and both of them wheelchair-users who live in high-rise buildings, have been told they can apply for a judicial review of the decision made by former home secretary Priti Patel.

Patel rejected the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendation that all owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings should be forced to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all residents who might find it difficult to “self-evacuate”.

That rejection – on the grounds of “practicality”, “proportionality” and “safety” – came despite a promise from prime minister Boris Johnson that he would implement all the recommendations from the inquiry’s first phase.

Hulme and Rennie have now been granted permission to seek a judicial review of the decision and have been told they have an “arguable” case.

It is hoped the court will hear their legal challenge by the end of the year.

The judge who heard their application has also agreed to cap their costs, so if they lose their case they will have to pay a maximum of £20,000 towards Home Office costs, as well as court fees that are likely to be no more than £1,500.

Claddag has so far raised nearly £16,000 through a crowdfunding appeal, but still needs to raise about another £5,500 to continue with the case.

Claddag’s solicitors, Bhatt Murphy, are working on a “no win no fee” basis, and if Rennie and Hulme are successful with their case, all the unused donations will be returned.

Hulme told Disability News Service: 

“Whilst the permission for a hearing is great news, the fact that the government needs to be held to account in this way is sadly another example of how it considers disabled, deaf and older people’s lives as less worthy.

“We appreciate the devastating impacts of both the cost of living and the building safety crises, but any small donation will help us, as a community, to get our day in court.”

The government’s rejection of the PEEPs recommendation came even though those who responded to a consultation on the proposal overwhelmingly supported their introduction.

Mayor of London criticises Government's 'watered down' post-Grenfell building evacuation plans and says PEEPs is the only way to ensure comprehensive & consistent implementation

Sadiq Khan has responded to the Government's post-Grenfell consultation on Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing which they undertook after rejecting the Grenfell Inquiry's recommendation on Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs).

It would be useful to know if Brent Council agrees with the London Mayor's  response.

 

Response to Emergency Evacuation Sharing Information Consultation
17 August 2022

Summary

 
The Mayor of London reiterates his view that legislating for Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in all buildings of any height covered by the Fire Safety Order, and providing central funding, is the only way to ensure there is comprehensive and consistent implementation across the entire country.

The proposals set out in this consultation on Emergency Evacuation Sharing Information (EEIS) amount to little more than a watered-down version of PEEPs. The Mayor has identified several of limitations to the EEIS proposals and has detailed them below.

Government’s ongoing failure to implement this recommendation from Grenfell Tower Inquiry is disappointing and concerning. Government must ensure that the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry do not become a missed opportunity for change, as was the case after the Lakanal House fire.

Five years on from the Grenfell fire, the Mayor pays tribute to the bereaved and survivors who are campaigning for change so that a disaster like Grenfell never happens again.

Response to consultation

Following the tragic loss of life in the fire at Grenfell Tower, in which 41 per cent of residents with disabilities died, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommended that owners and managers of every high-rise residential building be required by law to prepare PEEPs for all residents whose ability toself-evacuate may be compromised (such as persons with reduced mobility or cognition).

Given that 83 per cent of respondents to the original PEEPs consultation in 2021 supported the proposal, it is clear that there is significant demand for this recommendation to be implemented in full.

The Mayor is pleased to read that a working group of disabled groups and housing providers is being set up by government and would stress that the group membership must be diverse and reflect all views, including those who would benefit from PEEPs. It is vital that the working group considers and establishes the best way to implement PEEPs in practice.

While the call for evidence on PEEPs is welcome, government should also be conducting pilot schemes and undertaking research to make a more informed assessment of PEEPs in residential housing. The Mayor hopes that this would lead government to reconsider its latest position.

Following a commitment to implement PEEPS fully, the evidence collected from this process could then inform a nationwide protocol, guidance and training on how the housing and development sector could implement the requirements of any legislation on PEEPs.

The Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing (EEIS) consultation released on 18 May 2022 proposes alternative measures to protect the fire safety of residents who would need support to evacuate in an emergency. This proposal differs from PEEPs in a number of key ways. First, it only focuses on residents who are mobility impaired as opposed to those with other physical or cognitive impairments. Second, it only applies to buildings with a simultaneous evacuation strategy and not buildings with a stay put strategy. Third, it proposes five steps that involve conducting a Person Centred Fire Risk Assessment (PCFRA) as opposed to a PEEP, and then sharing information with the local Fire and Rescue Service (FRS). Fourth, it relies on the FRS to conduct rescues of those who would be unable to self-evacuate.

1. Scope

 
The Mayor is concerned that EEIS only focuses on residents that are mobility impaired and urges government to take a more inclusive approach. People who may be unable to self-evacuate include those with mobility issues but also those with other physical and cognitive impairments which may be permanent or temporary.

2. Building fire strategy

 
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommended PEEPs for all high-rise residential buildings and government consulted on that proposal on 8 June 2021. Government is now proposing to introduce EEIS – a watered down version of PEEPs – only for buildings with a simultaneous evacuation strategy in place. Under these proposals, those buildings with a stay put policy in place would not be required to provide EEISs for relevant residents. It is welcomed that government has moved away from using height as a distinguishing factor, but the new categorisation of fire strategy cannot be the correct approach either. A resident affected by smoke or fire must have a plan and means to get to a place of safety, regardless of whether the building has a stay put or simultaneous evacuation policy. Grenfell Tower was a building with a stay put policy and 72 people lost their lives. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report recommended government develop national guidelines for evacuation of high-rise buildings as a result. It is clear that stay put cannot be the only strategy and all buildings must have a Plan B so that residents can evacuate to a place of safety if stay put is no longer viable.

Since Grenfell, countless buildings have been found to have fire safety defects and have therefore been forced to change their fire strategy to simultaneous evacuation until remediation is complete.

Linking EEIS to buildings with simultaneous evacuation risks suggesting building owners can retire EEISs once the building has been remediated. That was never the intention of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendation around PEEPs.

3. Person Centred Fire Risk Assessments (PCFRAs)

 
A PCFRA is a risk assessment that helps identify residents who are at higher risk from fire in their own flat. It differs from a PEEP in that it is not a bespoke escape plan to assist residents who may have difficulties in evacuating a building unaided during an emergency.

The EEIS consultation proposes a process whereby the Responsible Person (RP) offers a PCFRA to residents who self-identify as requiring assistance to self-evacuate and then connects them with the local FRS to arrange a home fire safety visit.

The Mayor is content with the proposed reliance on self-identification but notes that its success relies on proactive communications from the RP. These communications should encourage residents to consider whether they need support and inform them of their rights.

PCFRAs will help identify residents who are at higher risk from fire in their own accommodation and measures such as fire-retardant bedding and fire safe ashtrays can be put in place for them in their homes. While PCFRAs are welcome and indeed already being undertaken now by some RPs, they focus on reducing the probability of fire inside someone’s flat and, unlike a PEEP, they do not incorporate an evacuation plan.

4. Reliance on FRS conducted rescue

 
The consultation makes the following argument against PEEPs: ‘the time between a fire being reported and the FRS mounting their operational response at the scene is the period in which a PEEP would be enacted. In a residential setting, there will inevitably be a limit as to what could be safely achieved by a single staff member or even a small team regarding support to mobility impaired residents in advance of the FRS attending with a greater number of competent, trained personnel.’ In other words, government is claiming there is insufficient time for a PEEP to add value and that FRS conducted rescue is always preferable.

The Mayor does not agree with this view for two reasons. First, the time that FRS takes to arrive at an emergency may be quick, but the time taken to actually set up a bridgehead, hoses and get into a position to fight fire and rescue residents in tall buildings is far greater. In reality there is more time for a PEEP to be effective than government is suggesting.

Second, expert evidence in the Inquiry has underscored the importance of timely evacuation to avoid serious and potentially fatal smoke inhalation. This highlights the risk inherent in the EEIS approach which relies solely on FRS conducted rescue instead of supporting self-evacuation.

 I asked the Green Party Disability Group for a comment on the issue. They said:

 

Personal emergency evacuation plans are critical to sustain human life in this climate crises-ridden world of today. For disabled people to be valued equally as human beings by those in power then society and safe & sustainable environments must be designed for everyone.

 

We are also living through a mass disabling event with an estimated 2 million people in the UK suffering from Long Covid. Tories view disabled people as having no value & as ‘other’. If those in power designed for us all equally & inclusively we would no longer be disabled.

 

We would be what we really are - people with impairments. And living equally with everyone else. Against the horrific backdrop of Grenfell & needless loss of life and great suffering each and every Tory voter must hang their heads in shame. Peeps are humane, this Govt isn’t.

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

 

 

FBU slams government rejection of key Grenfell inquiry recommendation for disabled people

 

From the Fire Brigades Union

The Fire Brigades Union has written to the government to demand it rethinks its decision to reject a key Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendation, on the evacuation of disabled residents of high-rise buildings.

The inquiry recommended that “that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs)” for all disabled residents.

But last month the government rejected the recommendation and revealed downgraded plans, which have been roundly criticised including by Grenfell campaigners and disability rights campaigners.

The government had promised to implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase one recommendations “in full”, of which this is one.

In a letter to Lord Greenhalgh dated 6 June 2022, Minister of State for Building Safety, Fire and Communities, Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union general secretary wrote [abridged]:

The FBU was disappointed with the Westminster government’s decision to downgrade work towards ensuring residents with disabilities are provided with Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs)

The [government] statement claims that implementation would involve significant issues with practicality, proportionality and safety. The FBU argues that resident safety is paramount, so there is a greater safety issue in declining to implement PEEPs. As for proportionality, the Inquiry has found the introduction of PEEPs to be a proportionate strategy, and the FBU agrees.

Some reasons given for the refusal seem poorly evidenced, for example stating that if a PEEP advised the purchase of an evacuation chair, there would be an “impact on the good relations between disabled residents and non-disabled residents if disproportionate costs were passed on to the latter. Building owners should carry the costs.”

The government’s decision is a negative, backward step, and the FBU stands with disability campaigners, the Grenfell campaign groups and the LGA in asking you to reconsider.

15 out of 37 disabled Grenfell Tower residents lost their lives in the fire.

 

'The government feel spending money to protect disabled people's lives is not worth doing'

I print below the Disability News Service LINK article about the Government's decision to not implement the Grenfell Inquiry's recommendations on personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for disabled people living in high rise flats.

I have asked Brent Council for a comment but meanwhile John Healey, whose tireless quest for a  PEEP has featured on this blog, told Wembley Matters,  "It all comes down to money, as the government feel spending money to protect disabled people's lives is not worth doing".

With the council and private developers in Brent  totally committed to high rise development this is an issue that merits close attention by Brent Scrutiny in the near future.

 

Disability News Service  

The government has caused outrage after announcing that it would not implement measures – recommended by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry – that would have ensured disabled people could safely evacuate high-rise blocks of flats in emergencies.

The inquiry had recommended that owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings should be legally required to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all residents who may find it difficult to “self-evacuate”.

But the Home Office said yesterday (Wednesday) that it had concluded that such laws would cost too much, and would not be safe or practical, even though some disabled people have already drawn up their own PEEPs.

One of its excuses is that attempting to evacuate disabled residents before firefighters arrive could “slow the evacuation of other residents”.

The prime minister, Boris Johnson, previously promised to implement all the recommendations of the first phase of the inquiry.

The Home Office announcement came nearly five years after the Grenfell Tower disaster, in which 72 people lost their lives, including 15 of its 37 disabled residents.

Appalled activists have now called for disabled-led organisations and allies to organise an urgent campaign of opposition to the government’s decision.

Sarah Rennie, co-founder of the disabled-led leaseholder action group Claddag, said: “We are outraged by the government’s U-turn on evacuation plans for disabled people.

“The government is wholly out of step with public opinion on this – even the professional sector seem shocked.

“This policy position is unethical and our community will not accept it.”

Jumoke Abdullahi, communications and media officer for Inclusion London, said: “It is truly deplorable that, coming up to the five-year anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, the government has decided not to require high-rise buildings to prepare evacuation arrangements for disabled residents to escape.

“Deciding that PEEPs would not be ‘practical’ and that they would cost too much speaks volumes to the government’s attitudes towards disabled people in the UK.

“The government must do better. Disabled people’s lives and safety cannot be seen as a fair trade-off in order to save money.”

The Home Office has also published its response to a consultation on the PEEP proposal, which ended last July.

The document shows that more than 83 per cent of those who responded supported the PEEP plan, even though many of those taking part in the consultation were building owners, property companies, construction companies and trade bodies.

Instead of implementing the PEEP proposal, the Home Office has decided instead to consult on its own “alternative package” of measures, which it calls Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing (EEIS).

But this will only apply to the minority of buildings that have been assessed as being “at higher risk”, while residents of other flats, including disabled residents, will have to continue with the current “stay put” policy, which means being told to “stay in their flats as long as the heat or smoke from the fire is not affecting them”.

EEIS will involve carrying out a fire risk assessment for disabled people who would need support to evacuate from their flat.

The Home Office has concluded that any fire safety measures suggested for inside a disabled person’s flat after this assessment “should remain largely for the resident to implement and finance”, while it will “also almost always be reasonable for the resident to pay for adjustments to common areas”.

These measures, it says, could include additional handrails, flame retardant bedding and fire safe ashtrays.

Although a PEEP could still be agreed if it was “practical, proportionate and safe”, the Home Office said it believed “these cases would be relatively rare”.

Details of any residents who still had “issues preventing them from self-evacuating in the event of a fire” would then be shared with the fire and rescue service, who would be able to access this information if an evacuation was needed.

It is now consulting on its EEIS plans, and is asking for evidence of any existing PEEPs that “support the full evacuation of mobility-impaired residents, and that satisfy the principles of practicality, proportionality and safety”.

Peter Apps, deputy editor of Inside Housing, which has led coverage of the inquiry, was highly critical of the Home Office’s decision, and analysed its many flaws in a long series of posts on Twitter, describing the announcement as “miserable, miserable news”.

Dennis Queen, a spokesperson for Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People, said: “GMCDP is really disappointed and angry at the government’s rejection of the recommendations of the Grenfell investigation and those of Claddag.

“Requiring personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for people living in high rise is really quite a minimal ask of landlords, and GMCDP has joined in with campaigning for PEEPs.

“This decision means landlords will continue to ignore best practice methods, lawfully.

“The government’s alternative suggestions do not go far enough. We will continue to support Claddag with their campaign.”

Disabled artist-activist Jess Thom called yesterday for disabled-led organisations and allies across the country to act “urgently” and make it clear that “this decision is unacceptable and will be challenged”.

She has been particularly involved in the issues around evacuation of high-rise blocks and fire safety since witnessing the 2009 Lakanal House fire, in Camberwell, south London.

Thom knew two of the children who died in the fire, and their mother, because they had attended a local children’s play project she ran.

Just as with residents of Grenfell, eight years later, they died after being told by the emergency services to stay in their flat and wait to be rescued.

Thom wrote to home secretary Priti Patel earlier this year, telling her about her connection to the Lakanal House fire, and the “indescribable” horror she felt in 2017 when she saw reports of the Grenfell fire and realised that “the warnings from Lakanal had not been heeded”.

She raised concerns in the letter about the Home Office’s decision to award a crucial fire safety contract to consultants who had repeatedly argued against introducing PEEPs for disabled residents of tower blocks.

She said this week that the Home Office’s decision on PEEPs “makes it brutally clear that the government views disabled lives as less valuable”.

Thom said the government’s decision to ignore the “clear” recommendation from the Grenfell inquiry on PEEPs, “the campaigning of Grenfell families and the powerful testimony of disabled residents trapped in buildings wrapped in dangerous cladding” was “outrageous”.

She added: “It should not be acceptable to ask disabled people to stay in burning buildings and to prioritise commercial interests over life safety.

“While this decision makes it brutally clear that the government views disabled lives as less valuable, we need individuals and organisations to urgently act in solidarity and allyship, and make it equally clear that this decision is unacceptable and will be challenged.”

Thom said: “It feels to me like they are making policy decisions based on industry’s assumptions about disability and not utilising any specialist and deeply held knowledge within disabled communities.”

She said it was “deeply troubling” that disabled people appeared to be getting “less protection and less progressive fire policies post-Grenfell than before”.

She added: “Ultimately you couldn’t get a clearer example of everything about us without us.

“Disabled lives and those of our families are on the line. Are disabled parents expected to sit with their children in burning buildings?”

 

A very thorough 2021 study  LINK  'Fire Safety in High-Rise Buildings: Is the Stay-Put Tactic a Misjudgement or Magnificent Strategy?'  is obselete with the potential to cause 'catastrophic misjudgement.'

 

ABSTRACT

 

Historically, fire incidents in high-rise buildings reveal that Fire and Rescue Services frequently rely on the stay-put tactic (i.e., occupants of high-rise buildings should remain in their apartments) during an inferno. Recent fire occurrences in high-rise buildings reveal that there are two opposing viewpoints on the stay-put tactic. First, the understanding that the stay-put tactic is a beneficial practice used to protect, control, and facilitate smooth evacuation of occupants during fire incidents. Second, the argument that the stay-put tactic is a misjudgement and futile strategy that leads to fatalities, particularly in high-rise buildings. The aim of this study was to provide awareness and understanding of fire and rescue services use of the stay-put tactic in high-rise buildings. We attempted to answer the questions: is the stay-put tactic a misjudgement or magnificent strategy?

The study adopted phenomenological research strategies with various focus groups consisting of seasoned firefighters and survivors with first-hand accounts of stay-put instructions in high-rise buildings. The study also scrutinised three case studies of fire incidents in high-rise buildings in two countries. The study revealed that the stay-put tactic is obsolete; with the potential to cause catastrophic misjudgement, mostly during conflagrations in high-rise buildings. 

There is a need to advance research on the use of artificial intelligence communication systems and infrared image detectors camera to enhance quick and smooth fire evacuation in high-rise buildings.

 

Disabled campaigners sickened by government refusal to ensure they are issued with Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) post Grenfell

 From Disability News LINK

Disabled campaigners say they are “horrified” and “sickened” by the government’s “unconscionable” refusal to ensure that disabled people living in high-rise buildings have the right to a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP).

Fire minister Lord [Stephen] Greenhalgh told fellow peers on Monday that the government had to question how much it was “reasonable to spend” on ensuring that disabled people have a PEEP as ministers “seek to protect residents and taxpayers from excessive costs”.

He was speaking on Monday as the House of Lords finished its examination of the government’s building safety bill, which will now return to the Commons for MPs to consider amendments made by peers.

The bill approaches its final parliamentary stages nearly five years after the Grenfell Tower disaster, in which 72 people lost their lives, including 15 of its 37 disabled residents.

The ongoing Grenfell Tower Inquiry has already recommended that owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings should be legally required to prepare PEEPs for all residents who may find it difficult to “self-evacuate”.

But the government has refused to back such a proposal in its bill.

As well as the cost of making PEEPs mandatory, Lord Greenhalgh  said on Monday that a government consultation also raised other “substantial difficulties”.

He said: “On practicality, how can you evacuate a mobility-impaired person from a tall building before the professionals from the fire and rescue service arrive?

“On safety, how can you ensure that an evacuation of mobility-impaired people is carried out in a way that does not hinder others in evacuating or the fire and rescue service in fighting the fire?”

He said the government would now launch another consultation, this time looking at its new plans for “emergency evacuation information-sharing” (EEIS), although it has yet to explain how EEIS would work.

It plans to publish the proposals next month on the same day that it releases its response to its PEEPs consultation.

A government spokesperson  on Wednesday declined to provide any further details about ministers’ EEIS plans.

The minister’s comments have horrified campaigners from Claddag, a disabled-led leaseholder action group that is fighting for disabled people within blocks of flats to have the right to an evacuation plan.

Claddag said the new consultation was a “shameful attempt to evade the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendations” and described the government’s continuing refusal to accept the PEEPs recommendation as “unconscionable”.

A Claddag spokesperson said they were “horrified and deeply dismayed” by Lord Greenhalgh’s comments.

She added: “We were sickened to hear the minister question whether any associated costs of evacuation plans are reasonable as he ‘seeks to protect residents and taxpayers’ from costs.

“Lord Greenhalgh has repeated the tired myth that every evacuation plan involves a cost.

“[He] is provoking fear and resentment among cash-strapped leaseholders against their disabled neighbours, based on a dangerous generalisation.

“The final blow was Lord Greenhalgh’s attempt to shame disabled people into ‘staying put’ in a fire to avoid ‘hindering others’ from evacuating. Please let that sink in.

“It is preposterous for the government to assert that it is ‘committed to supporting the fire safety of disabled people’ when it rejects the use of evacuation plans on the basis of costs, convenience and ableism.”

Claddag said Lord Greenhalgh was wrong to suggest that it was not possible to evacuate mobility-impaired residents before firefighters arrive.

To demonstrate why he was wrong and to highlight Claddag’s concerns about the government’s “absurd” position, Claddag co-founder Sarah Rennie  has given Disability News Service permission to publish details of her own PEEP.

She said: “I presented my own evacuation plan to my managing agents, despite their fire safety advisors urging them to refuse to accept a plan for me and leave me to the fire service. A friend who specialises in evacuation plans helped me put mine together.

“I live on the 13th floor and moved in to my flat on the understanding I could use the lift in a fire.

“As part of the building safety crisis, we discovered my lift was not constructed properly and could not be used in a fire.”

Sarah Rennie:

“We are able to hear our fire alarm clearly. If we are in the flat, my personal assistant (PA) collects my evacuation chair and hoists me into it. All my PAs are trained how to use it and practice regularly. Many of my neighbours have my phone number and check on my whereabouts as we descend the flights of stairs so they can keep the fire service and building management briefed on my location.

“We had a real fire in January on the eighth floor. Despite the time it takes me to transfer and move down the stairs, I had managed to get to the floor below the fire before the fire service arrived. This massively improved my risk of survival. What’s more we barely passed anyone on the stairs as they’d all long gone, so I don’t understand how Greenhalgh thinks I hinder anyone.

“Whilst not everyone has a full time PA like me, not everyone needs this to evacuate. Some people simply need a guiding arm from a neighbour or to check they heard the alarm.

“I have all the components I could possibly need to evacuate safely, so it’s absurd that the government’s policy against evacuation plans would stop me if my managing agents were not responsible and progressive.

“Without my evacuation plan, I would be forced to stay put. Research shows it takes 27 minutes for the Fire Service to intervene. Being rescued in a rush to save your life, without appropriate training or equipment for your impairment, may lead to significant or life-changing injuries. But by rejecting the opportunity to evacuate with time and planning, we’re making these unnecessary injuries virtually inevitable, not to mention the pressure being put on the fire service.”

 Addition from Wembley Matters:

Locally,  John Healy, who lives on the South Kilburn Estate and whose battle to get a PEEP from Brent Council has featured on Wembley Matters tells us:

 

My mobility issues are no longer as bad as they were in September 2020 when I really needed a PEEP, as I was housebound with Long Covid fatigue.

But my block -William Dunbar House, as well as all high -rises in South Kilburn, does not have any fire alarms to alert me, or any other tenants to a possible fire.  

In the two serious fires in my block I never heard my neighbour's shouting "Fire" outside my flat, or for one of the fires, I did not hear a fireman banging on my door telling me to evacuate my building.

I only learned  later on about these warnings and I only became aware of both fires when I smelt the smoke.  Fortunately neither fire turned out to be as bad as they could have been.

As for other residents helping me in a serious fire situation, the chair of my Resident's Association told me. "You are on your own mate, as we will all be making our own escapes as quickly as we can and if you need any help, why not ask the council to see what support they can give you".