University duty to provide PEEP

Short answer

There is no single statutory provision that says in so many words “a university must produce a PEEP for a disabled student.” However, taken together, fire safety law and equality law mean that in practice a university normally must plan for the safe evacuation of a disabled student, and a PEEP is the standard and expected way of doing that. So while the label “PEEP” is guidance rather than a rigid legal command, the underlying duties that a PEEP is designed to satisfy are legally binding.

The three overlapping duties

The obligation comes from three sources working together.

First, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The “responsible person” for the premises (typically the university, as the body in control of the building) must carry out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and put in place adequate arrangements for the safe evacuation of all “relevant persons” who may be on the premises. That expressly includes disabled people. The fire and rescue service is not the primary means of escape for disabled occupants; the responsible person must ensure everyone can reach a place of safety without relying on the fire service to carry them out. Government guidance on means of escape for disabled people makes clear that a general evacuation strategy is not enough where an individual cannot use it, and that individual plans are the recognised solution.

Second, the Equality Act 2010. A university is both a service provider and an education provider under the Act, and disability is a protected characteristic. The university owes an anticipatory and individual duty to make reasonable adjustments so that a disabled student is not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled students. Being unable to evacuate safely, or being left without a plan when others can simply walk out, is a clear substantial disadvantage. Producing and implementing a PEEP is the obvious reasonable adjustment. Failing to do so can amount to unlawful disability discrimination as well as a fire safety breach.

Third, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and associated regulations, which require the university to protect the health and safety of those affected by its activities, including students and visitors.

So is a PEEP mandatory?

A PEEP as such is a piece of official and sector guidance rather than a term written into the statute. What is legally mandatory is the outcome the PEEP delivers: that a disabled student who cannot safely follow the standard evacuation arrangements has effective, planned arrangements to reach a place of safety, and that reasonable adjustments have been made. For a student with a mobility, sensory, cognitive or other impairment that affects their ability to evacuate, meeting those duties will almost always require an individual plan, which universities record as a PEEP.

Where a student’s needs are already fully met by the general evacuation strategy, a bespoke PEEP may not be necessary. For visitors or those whose presence is occasional and unpredictable, a Generic or Standard Emergency Evacuation Plan (a GEEP) may be used instead. But for an identified disabled student who regularly uses university buildings and cannot evacuate unaided, an individual PEEP is the expected and, in practical terms, required response.

What a PEEP should cover and how it is produced

A PEEP is drawn up jointly, usually involving the student, disability or student support services, and the fire safety or estates team. It typically identifies the buildings and rooms the student uses, the specific difficulty (for example evacuating stairs, hearing alarms, or processing instructions), the assistance and equipment needed such as evacuation chairs and refuge points, who is responsible for giving assistance, communication methods such as visual or vibrating alarms, and the route to a place of safety. It should be reviewed if the student’s circumstances, timetable or the building changes.

The duty is anticipatory in part: the university should have arrangements and infrastructure such as refuges, evacuation chairs and trained staff in place, and should ask incoming disabled students whether they need a plan rather than waiting to be asked.

Practical steps if a university has not provided one

1. Put the request in writing to disability or student support services and, if relevant, the accommodation office, stating your impairment and the difficulty you have evacuating, and asking for a PEEP and a meeting to prepare it.

2. Frame it expressly as a request for a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010 and refer to the fire safety evacuation duty. This creates a clear record and puts the university on notice.

3. Follow up promptly if there is no response, and note that this is a health and safety and disability matter that should be treated as a priority.

4. If it is still not resolved, use the university’s formal complaints procedure. If that fails, you can escalate to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education after exhausting internal procedures. Fire safety failings can also be raised with the local fire and rescue authority, which enforces the Fire Safety Order. A disability discrimination claim relating to a higher education provider can be brought in the County Court, generally within six months of the act complained of, though early informal resolution is usually far quicker and less stressful.

Points that could change the analysis

The answer can turn on details it would help to know: whether the buildings involved are teaching premises, university-managed accommodation, or premises controlled by a third party, because the “responsible person” for fire safety may differ; the nature and permanence of the disability; whether the student has already disclosed the disability to the university; and whether the general evacuation arrangements already meet the student’s needs without a bespoke plan. Where the building is controlled by another organisation, both that organisation and the university may owe overlapping duties, and it is worth clarifying who is responsible for what.

If a university has simply not yet got round to preparing a plan, that is more likely an administrative or procedural failing to be resolved through the support service and, if needed, the complaints process, rather than deliberate discrimination. It becomes a stronger legal complaint if the university refuses a plan, ignores a clear request, or leaves an identified disabled student without safe evacuation arrangements.