High Court gives go-ahead for judicial review of Home Office decision not to implement recommendation on emergency evacuation plans for disabled residents

The High Court has agreed to hear a judicial review over the Home Office’s decision not to implement a recommendation from the Chair of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry for personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled people living in tower blocks.

A pair of residents who are disabled and live in a medium and high-rise building are bringing the claim with the support of a group named Claddag.

Claddag represents residents who are disabled or have health conditions and are living in homes affected by the cladding and building safety crisis.

The claimants argue that the Home Office’s decision not to implement recommendations made by the Chair of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, in a 2019 consultation on Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) was flawed.

Mr Moore-Bick recommended:

“e)[…] that 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

f) […] that 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.”

In May 2022, the Home Office published its response to the PEEPS consultation, which detailed plans not to implement the two recommendations concerning evacuating disabled people. It said this was due to concerns around safety, practicality, and proportionality.

Instead, it announced it would introduce “an alternative package of initiatives that supports the fire safety of residents whose ability to self-evacuate may be compromised”.

In their pre-action protocol letter challenging the omission, the claimants argued that the Home Office showed a failure to have regard to the “key rationale (and expert evidential foundation) for the recommendations”, a breach of legitimate expectation by failing to consult on departure from the recommendations, and unfairness in the PEEPs consultation process, “which has deprived consultees of a fair opportunity to address fundamental matters relied on in the decision”.

In addition, the group claimed the decision amounted to a breach of the public sector equality duty in s.149 of the Equality Act 2010 and a breach of Article 2 and/or Article 14 (read with Article 2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Article 2 of the ECHR protects the right to life, and Article 14 prohibits discrimination. The group argue the Home Office breached the ECHR in failing to put in place an adequate system to safeguard the life of disabled residents in the event of fire and/or in failing to cater for the different needs of disabled persons unable to independently evacuate from high-rise residential buildings.

In giving permission for the case to be heard, the High Court also granted the claimant a cost capping order as it deemed it a public interest case, meaning if unsuccessful, the group will pay no more than £20,000 of the Home Office’s legal fees.

Law for Change has donated £10,000 to the group’s legal fund, and supporters have also donated a further £5,805, but the group is seeking a further £6,000 in donations on its crowdfunding page in order to proceed.

In an update announcing the High Court’s decision, Claddag said it hoped the case would be heard before the end of the year.

The Home Office declined to comment on the legal proceedings.

Adam Carey