Why Disability Rights UK and Inclusion London Say the 2025 Regulations Don’t Go Far Enough
The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 were introduced as the government’s response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s call for evacuation planning for disabled residents. Since they were laid in July 2025 and came into force on 6 April 2026, disability advocacy organisations have consistently and publicly argued that the Regulations fall well short of what the Inquiry actually recommended. This page sets out that criticism alongside the government’s position, so Responsible Persons and residents alike can understand the full picture, not just the compliance checklist.
What the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Recommended
The Inquiry’s Phase 1 Report, published in October 2019, called for a legal right to a personal emergency evacuation plan for every disabled resident of a high-rise building who might struggle to self-evacuate. Of the 37 disabled residents living in Grenfell Tower on the night of the fire, 15 died, meaning disabled residents made up around 41% of those who lost their lives despite being a much smaller proportion of the building’s population. That statistic has anchored the disability sector’s response to the Regulations ever since.
What the Regulations Actually Deliver
Rather than a guaranteed individual right to a PEEP, the Regulations require Responsible Persons to use “reasonable endeavours” to identify relevant residents and, having identified them, to use “reasonable endeavours” to agree an emergency evacuation statement. Participation is voluntary throughout, and the Regulations apply only to buildings of 18 metres or seven storeys or more, or buildings above 11 metres with a simultaneous evacuation strategy, meaning disabled residents in lower-rise buildings fall outside their scope entirely.
The Disability Sector’s Response
Disability Rights UK
Disability Rights UK initially welcomed the government’s proposals but changed position once the detail became clear, describing the resulting policy as “no way near” the level of evacuation plan many disabled people will actually need. The organisation has argued that offering a fire risk assessment is not equivalent to guaranteeing an evacuation plan, and that the gap between what was promised after Grenfell and what has been delivered represents a broken commitment.
Inclusion London
Inclusion London has been the most vocal critic of the Regulations, calling them “weak” and warning they risk becoming a tick-box exercise rather than a genuine safety measure. The organisation has specifically highlighted that the government’s own earlier commitment to “best endeavours” was downgraded to the lower legal standard of “reasonable endeavours” in the final Regulations, which it says fundamentally weakens what Responsible Persons are obliged to do. Inclusion London has called for the Regulations to be withdrawn and replaced with legislation co-produced with disabled people’s organisations, and has described the current approach as “a significant step backwards in the fight for equitable fire safety and disability justice.”
The London Assembly
The criticism hasn’t stayed confined to advocacy groups. In February 2026, the London Assembly passed a motion, carried 13 votes to nil, calling on the Mayor of London and the London Fire Commissioner to formally ask MHCLG to reconsider the Regulations on behalf of London’s Deaf and disabled community, and reminding the government that the Regulations fall short of the Inquiry’s original recommendation.
The Government’s Position
The government’s response, set out following the Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing Plus consultation, is that the Residential PEEPs policy represents what it considers a practical, proportionate, and safe way to address the Inquiry’s recommendations. Government guidance points to extensive engagement with stakeholders, including the National Fire Chiefs’ Council, Fire and Rescue Services, local authorities, housing providers, and disability advocacy groups themselves, and frames the voluntary nature of the process as necessary to respect residents’ right not to disclose a disability or health condition if they choose not to.
What This Means in Practice
For Responsible Persons, the legal duty is what’s set out in the Regulations, and that duty applies regardless of where you or your residents stand on this debate. But understanding the criticism matters for a practical reason: several of the specific concerns raised by Inclusion London and Disability Rights UK map directly onto the same gaps that fire safety consultancies have flagged since commencement, residents declining to engage without fully understanding the offer, and administrative processes that satisfy the letter of the Regulations without necessarily reaching every resident who needs support. Treating the Regulations as a floor rather than a ceiling, and going beyond the minimum “reasonable endeavours” standard where practical, is a reasonable response to both the legal risk and the substance of what campaigners are raising.
It’s also worth Responsible Persons knowing that disabled residents retain existing rights under the Equality Act 2010 independently of the Residential PEEPs Regulations, and can request reasonable adjustments, including evacuation planning, through that separate route regardless of whether their building falls within the Regulations’ height or evacuation-strategy criteria.
Further Reading
For the full legal detail on the Regulations themselves, see our PEEPs Legal Framework and Residential PEEPs compliance guide. For the parliamentary research underpinning this debate, see the House of Commons Library briefing on residential PEEPs, published July 2026.