The High Court has found that the Government “was cognisant of the urgent public safety imperative of evacuation plans in every high rise residential building as identified in the [Grenfell Tower Inquiry] Phase 1 report recommendations” but made an “essentially political decision” that the safety imperative was outweighed by practical and cost considerations. The Court’s finding comes following judicial review proceedings brought by Bhatt Murphy 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.
In October 2019 the Chair of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry made urgent fire safety recommendations including that there should be a legal requirement on owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings to prepare PEEPs for all residents whose ability to self-evacuate in an emergency may be compromised, and to keep relevant and up-to-date information about such residents and their PEEPs in a premises information box (“the PEEPs recommendations”).
The Claimants brought judicial review proceedings challenging the outcome of a consultation (“the PEEPs consultation”) which was itself the result of earlier judicial review proceedings brought by a bereaved family member of a disabled tenant who died in the fire at Grenfell Tower.
The PEEPs consultation sought consultees’ views on four proposals which would require the preparation of PEEPs for disabled residents in high-rise residential buildings. Those who responded to the consultation overwhelmingly supported implementation of the PEEPs proposals. Despite this, the government’s response of 18 May 2022 indicated a decision not to mandate PEEPs for disabled residents in high-rise buildings, on grounds of asserted concerns over safety, proportionality and practicality. Instead, a further government consultation was launched, consulting on new proposals (the so-called EEIS+ proposals) which did not implement the PEEPs recommendations and are limited to a very small proportion of high rise residential buildings.
At a two-day hearing in the High Court in December 2022, the Claimants argued that the decision to reject the PEEPs recommendations was unlawful, including because:
- The government had failed to understand the rationale behind the PEEPs recommendations;
- The public consultation process was so unfair as to be unlawful, including because repeated assurances from government Ministers that the PEEPs recommendations would be implemented in full created a legitimate expectation of consultation on any proposed rejection of the PEEPs recommendations prior to any decision to reject them being taken;
- A failure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty, under which the Home Secretary must have regard to the need to among other things advance the equality of opportunity of disabled people; and
- Failure to meaningfully act on the Chair’s PEEPs recommendations constituted a breach of disabled residents’ right to life and to freedom from discrimination under Articles 2 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The government’s primary argument in defence of the claim was that no decision had been made to reject the PEEPs recommendations, and that the government was still considering how to implement the Inquiry Chair’s recommendations. This was emphatically rejected by the Judge, who found that by late March 2022, a decision had been “conclusively made not to implement the PEEPs recommendations”. The judgment outlines internal records (only obtained following a disclosure application by the Claimants) documenting Ministerial concern about making public the decision to reject the PEEPs recommendations because it would be “politically difficult to justify” and that the approach adopted by the Minister reflected a “fear of political fallout”. The government continues to state publicly that the recommendations will be implemented; as recently as 6 July 2023 Michael Gove MP stated in a letter to the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan that “The recommendations relating to PEEPs and broader evacuation plans remain a key priority, and the Home Office is currently considering how best to deliver these recommendations, following recent public consultations”.
The Judge ultimately concluded that the decision taken to reject the Inquiry’s recommendations was a political decision, and that it was not for a Court to adjudicate on the difference of views between the Inquiry experts who supported the recommendations on the one hand and the views of landlords and property owners whose concerns about practicality and cost the Government has preferred. The Judge recognised how “bitterly disappointing” it was for the Claimants and many others for the ”carefully considered PEEPs recommendations” not to have been implemented. The Claimants now call on the Government to do the right thing and act on its repeated previous public commitments to implement the PEEPs recommendations. They also call on the Grenfell Tower public inquiry to ensure that it subjects the Government’s decision to reject the Chair’s PEEPs recommendations (as revealed by the judicial review) to critical scrutiny based on the extensive body of evidence heard by the public inquiry before and since the recommendations were made.
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. Under the government’s current EEIS+ proposals, it would remain permissible for responsible persons of buildings not to put in place such plans.
Sarah Rennie & Georgie Hulme responded to the judgment as follows:
“The Court’s judgment makes clearer than ever to us and our community that a political decision has been made by this Government to leave disabled and older people living in high rise buildings without means of escape. It is a decision taken without listening to the experts and persons with lived experience who hold the answers to perceived practical difficulties. It is a decision to prioritise money over disabled persons’ lives. And it is a decision not to learn the lessons of the disproportionate deaths of disabled persons in the Grenfell Tower fire as identified by the Chair of the public inquiry.
However, this case has sparked a national conversation. Our supporters within the housing sector and fire safety industry have noted a significant shift in thinking on this issue over the last 12 months and the inhumane ‘stay put’ mantra has, at long last, lost its dangerous grip.
We thank our legal team for their unwavering dedication together with Law for Change and everyone who has supported us to pursue this judicial review. Our small part in the pursuit of justice will continue.”
NOTE TO EDITORS
The Claimants are represented by Mark Scott and Joanna Khan of Bhatt Murphy together with Raj Desai of Matrix Chambers.
Claddag 