The Precise Legal Definition, and Why It Matters
Across this site, and across the Regulations themselves, the term “relevant resident” comes up constantly. It’s the person a Responsible Person must use reasonable endeavours to identify, the person offered a Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessment, and the person an Emergency Evacuation Statement gets written for. But the term has a precise legal meaning that’s worth understanding properly, both because it’s narrower than it might first appear, and because getting it wrong in either direction, missing someone who qualifies, or over-including someone who doesn’t, has real consequences.
The Two-Part Test
Under the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025, a relevant resident is someone who meets both of the following conditions:
- The building is their only or principal residence, and
- Their ability to evacuate the building without assistance in the event of a fire is compromised because of a physical or cognitive impairment or condition.
Both parts have to be true. A person with a qualifying impairment who doesn’t live in the building as their only or principal home doesn’t meet the definition, and someone who lives there full-time but has no impairment affecting their evacuation doesn’t either. It’s the combination that triggers the duty.
Why “Only or Principal Residence” Matters
This part of the test exists to draw a sensible boundary around who the Responsible Person is actually planning for. Consider a few practical scenarios:
- A resident who owns the flat but lives there only occasionally (a second home or an occasional-use property) is unlikely to meet the “only or principal residence” limb, even if they have a qualifying impairment.
- A live-in carer or family member staying with a resident generally wouldn’t be a relevant resident in their own right unless the flat is genuinely their principal home too, though their presence is still highly relevant to how the resident’s own PEEP is written.
- A resident who has recently moved in counts from the point the building becomes their principal residence, not from some fixed qualifying period, which is part of why identification has to be an ongoing process (as covered in our piece on the first months of compliance), not a one-off survey.
What Counts as a Qualifying Impairment or Condition
The Regulations don’t provide an exhaustive list, government guidance instead gives examples of physical and cognitive impairments or conditions that could compromise someone’s ability to evacuate unaided. In practice, this has consistently been understood to cover mobility impairments (including wheelchair users and those who struggle with stairs), sensory impairments (sight and hearing), cognitive conditions (including dementia and some learning disabilities), and other health conditions that could reasonably affect someone’s ability to respond to and physically execute a fire evacuation.
The test is functional, not diagnostic. What matters legally isn’t the label attached to a condition, but whether it genuinely compromises the resident’s ability to evacuate without assistance. This is also why the Regulations don’t require residents to disclose a medical diagnosis, only enough information for the Responsible Person to understand the practical evacuation need.
What This Definition Deliberately Doesn’t Cover
It’s worth being clear about the edges of this definition, since assuming too broad a scope creates its own problems, an overloaded PCFRA process, unclear priorities, and residents being asked unnecessary questions.
- Temporary, minor conditions that don’t meaningfully affect evacuation ability (a minor sprain, for example) generally wouldn’t meet the threshold, though a Responsible Person should still exercise judgement rather than applying a rigid line.
- General age-related caution alone, without an accompanying impairment that actually affects evacuation, doesn’t automatically qualify someone, though age-related conditions very often do.
- Visitors and non-resident family members fall outside the Residential PEEPs regime entirely, the Regulations are specifically about residents, not visitors, and general fire safety duties under the Fire Safety Order cover visitor safety separately.
Why the Precision Matters in Practice
Getting this definition right matters for the Responsible Person on both sides. Under-identifying relevant residents, missing someone who clearly meets the test, risks non-compliance and, more importantly, risks leaving someone without a plan they need. Over-identifying, treating every resident as potentially relevant regardless of the actual evidence, dilutes the process and makes it harder to give genuine attention to those who do qualify.
The Regulations don’t expect Responsible Persons to make clinical judgements. Where there’s genuine uncertainty about whether someone meets the definition, the sensible approach is to offer a Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessment and let that process establish the actual position, rather than trying to pre-judge eligibility from the identification stage alone.
Further Reading
For the full process once a relevant resident has been identified, see our Residential PEEPs compliance guide. For other terms used throughout this process, see our PEEP Glossary.
Ready to Create Your First PEEP?
Download our free template and start ensuring everyone in your building can evacuate safely. No registration required.
Brand new PEEP templates for individual sectors will be uploaded soon.