Reality check: Understanding the impact of PEEPs on block management

While the principle behind PEEPs has been widely welcomed across the sector, the first few months of implementation have highlighted the scale of the challenge facing Responsible Persons, Resident Management Companies (RMCs) and managing agents.

Challenges of implementing PEEPs at scale in a residential setting

The focus has now shifted from understanding the legislation to delivering it in practice; a process that requires significant time, expertise and resources investment on behalf of the Responsible Person. For many organisations, the challenge is not whether they support the objectives of PEEPs, but how they can effectively deliver what is a highly personalised and resource-intensive process across large residential portfolios.

One of the first challenges is identifying vulnerable residents. Residents cannot be compelled to disclose vulnerabilities, but ‘all reasonable efforts’ must be taken to try to reach them and allow them to identify if assistance might be required. 

Reaching all residents is undoubtedly difficult, particularly where resident turnover may be high, or in the case of subletting or mixed tenancies. Managing agents need to use a variety of different mediums to try and reach all residents; whether through portals, letters or posters, engaging with residents on their requirements is key. 

In a multi-occupied residential asset, individuals can be isolated. This is in stark contrast to commercial buildings where there is an inbuilt support structure catching people through contracts, HR and colleagues. 

The next challenge is in qualifying resident data to identify those individuals for whom a Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessment (PCFRA) may be required. A resident must be offered the PCFRA, to which, they can choose to accept whether one is carried out. If the resident declines to participate in the PCFRA, they cannot be forced or compelled to do so and the Responsible Person therefore must ensure clear and accurate records that demonstrate steps taken in identifying and offering the PCFRA. It’s important to note that the resident may still consent to their information with the Fire and Rescue Service, even if they decline to proceed with the PCFRA process. 

If a resident opts for a Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessment (PCFRA) to determine if a PEEP is required, it must be carried out by a competent person, for example, a fire risk assessor. This is a one-to-one conversation often taking place in a resident’s home, and involving wide-ranging discussions around any aspect that may impact fire risk or evacuation including vulnerabilities, lifestyle factors or medical equipment. There is a huge range of factors and variables that can influence an evacuation plan and all of these need to be taken into consideration in the right sequence. 

These risk assessments cannot rely on technical knowledge alone.

From having a good understanding of a wide range of medical or mental health conditions, to dealing with specific, individual preferences - PCFRAs require a specific approach and engagement strategy.  Ultimately, assessors must be able to navigate potentially challenging or intrusive conversations sensitively.

Even as the new regime comes into force, the industry faces a stark shortage of competent assessors. This is in no small part due to the lack of adequate accessible training, where industry standards have not fully caught up with the new skillsets required. As a result, some firms are choosing not to offer PCFRAs and PEEPs because of the challenges in delivering it to the right standards and quality. Sadly, this puts the industry on the backfoot from the get go.

What happens after a PCFRA? 

Once an assessment is done, proposed measures and risk mitigations are put forward for discussion. These could include a flashing or vibrating fire alarm for a resident that is hard of hearing, or creating refuge areas for wheelchair users as a building-wide measure. The range of mitigation measures that might be suitable will depend on the individual, the building and the circumstances. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach when it comes to risk mitigation. 

Importantly, residents can’t be compelled to implement any recommended measures, not least because measures implemented are likely to be at resident expense.  Risk mitigating measures are typically only recouped through service charge where there is a clear benefit to the whole building.

For social housing, there is money available from local authorities to help cover the costs. There are calls for this to be extended to low-income families living in private accommodation in the future. The Responsible Person should also consider if the resident may be eligible for means-tested Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) support, which may cover some costs for measures which improve access to and safe use of premises.

But since residents can opt out of implementing any measures, it’s highly likely that cost may be a barrier for some. Since the resident cannot be compelled to implement the measures and the Responsible Person is only required to cover the costs of them when they benefit the whole building, a resident opting out of implementing the measures would effectively end the PCFRA process. It’s important to remember that the Responsible Person would need to continue to engage with the resident in case the circumstances or needs of the resident changes.

What PEEPs mean for the industry

The new PEEPs regime increases responsibility and perceived liability on Responsible Persons, whether they be Freeholders, RMCs or Right to Manage (RTM) companies.  To get into the best possible position, property managers or Responsible Persons should already be working to identify the buildings that this applies to and gather a baseline of quality contact information to support engagement and ongoing communications with residents, which will be critical to identifying those for whom vulnerabilities or existing conditions might impede evacuation.

For assessors and property service providers, investing in bespoke or tailored training is vital; a cookie-cutter approach simply won’t cut it anymore.  Training needs to go far beyond the current market standards to help assessors develop the right interpersonal skills to deliver sensitive, human-centric assessments, and implement the right structure to create the best possible conditions for productive one-to-one conversations. 

Even though PEEPS have been some time in the making, there has not been enough guidance or support to enable the sector to deliver what is a complex and nuanced stakeholder engagement programme effectively at scale, to achieve the ideal outcomes of ensuring timely, inclusive assistance during emergencies.  As an example, we can look to both the commercial sector and social housing, where the relevant skills and experience are more established. The residential sector could collaborate to capture best practice and processes that would support the training and development of this new generation of highly skilled Fire Risk Assessors.

While PEEPs undoubtedly present a significant step-change in the skills required to stay compliant with building safety regulations, it also offers an opportunity for the sector to work together to collectively create a safer built environment for all. 

David Flack, Director of Risk at SRVO Property