quote=boblewis]To push this problem to cover ALL social housing stock is a bit of a nonsense to minimise the problem by an argument ad absurdum. Escape from a single occupancy home is very different to a multiple occupancy building - It applies to all premises in multiple occupation however and we cannot avoid that. Many charity homes I have worked for have had removal policies since the 1980s and yes it is very sad and delicate when one has to exercise such clauses but can you consciously place such people at measurable risk of life and limb?
One it maybe be but it is likened to the problem that if you have no employees and and no wardens then writing something for the sake is equally nonsense, unless you come from the school of write it because it covers your arse thought.
The FRS do not have to rescue you and your assessment cannot include this. That is a fact! so without other people who may have respocibilities then you are writing it to cover your arse.
And if you are doing it for buildings were no one baring the owner/Landlord has responsibilty then why don't the local council have the same responsbility?
Within these buildinbgs you could have people with disabilities visiting they do not have to declare it, residents do not have to declare disabilites even mobilty disbilities and you cannot just look at he can't walk or walks with a stick, they might have heart disease, asthma, they might not be able to cope in new situations autism etc.
So without support they might not be able to go out. We would be better looking at the type of passive fire detection and ensuring thatr this was top standard instead o0f concentrating on a piece of paper with little to no value, but that would cost money so lets write a PEEP, well done that's one person who thinks he is safe and isn't.