This article aims to reflect on the position the courts take for landlords to force entry into their properties. There are numerous cases where a landlord has attempted to gain entry into their property for the purposes of undertaking obligatory testing of their appliances in order to meet their statutory duties, however, the tenant has refused entry on numerous occasions. Under such circumstances, the landlord must make an application to the court to allow for entry.
What should a landlord evidence for the court proceedings?
When attending court, it is paramount that landlords provide the necessary documentation. The evidence should detail any attempts that were made to communicate with the tenant in order to gain access, including by providing alternate means for the tenant to contact the landlord. Further, the landlord must provide evidence of their tenancy agreement and evidence that the tenant has been put on notice of the proceedings.
The approach taken by the courts in relation to forced entry has remained subjective.
Courts granting forced access
Some judges have adopted the view that forced entry is possible under legislation. In the case of Sovereign Housing Association Limited v Jane Hall (Bristol County Court, 10 July 2024), the court considered CPR 70.2A(2):
CPR 70.2A(2) provides that “subject to paragraph (4), if a mandatory order, an injunction or a judgement or order for the specific performance of a contract is not complied with, the court may direct that the act required to be done may, so far as practicable, be done by another person, being — (a) the party by whom the order or judgment was obtained; or (b) some other person appointed by the court”.
HHJ Berkley made the following helpful indication:
“CPR 70.2A, if interpreted as I find it should be, is consistent with the Overriding Objective because it gives the court power to efficiently assist the beneficiary of one of its orders, and that beneficiary is likely to be more interested in having the order complied with from a practical perspective than see the disobedient party punished for contempt, although that power is, as I have already alluded to, specifically preserved, even if paragraph 70.2A(2) is invoked. […] I allow the appeal.”
The court’s decision, whilst not binding as it is a county court decision, helpfully shows that it may be possible in some circumstances to seek forced entry. However, this case was considered in circumstances where the Defendant did not comply with a court order and not at the first hearing.
Courts refusing forced access
Other case law has set out the position to refuse forced access. The recent case of Southern Housing v Emmanual [2025] EWCC 58 has sought to clarify the position which may be adopted by the court:
“My decision is that no judge can give a landlord permission to force entry into their tenant’s home for things like inspections, repairs and safety checks. I think Parliament would need to change the law before a judge could make that kind of order.
But I make it clear to Mr Emmanuel that this doesn’t mean he can refuse to let his landlord into his home. In fact, he must let them in. That’s because the court has already made an order telling him to do this.
If Mr Emmanuel doesn’t let his landlord in to carry out the checks, he might face proceedings to imprison him for contempt of court, or to evict him from his home”.
This position was reaffirmed by HHJ Parker during a recent case [M00CT821], where a landlord sought to include a term to drill the locks in order to gain entry into the property. HHJ Parker noted the above case and stated that the court does not have the power to implement such a term and if such a term were included in the tenancy agreement, there would be no need for the judge to adjudicate upon it.
What is the court’s position now?
This area of law remains somewhat unclear and subject to judicial interpretation. However, recent case law does provide helpful guidance on the position of the courts when considering whether forced entry is an appropriate term included in an access injunction order.
What happens at court?
At court, both parties will make submissions on their position. The landlord will exhibit all the evidence to show non-compliance with the tenancy agreement and refusal of access. The Defendant shall explain the reasoning behind the non-compliance. The tenant will often have to pay a successful Landlord’s costs of the application for an injunction.
Once a court injunction has been granted to allow access it will be hand delivered to the Defendant’s address which will detail the date of the injunction and the terms of the access requirement. The court injunction will often remain in place for the duration of the tenancy.
The team at Becket Chambers frequently take instructions in relation to civil matters. Should the reader have any questions, or is looking for representation, please do not hesitate to contact us at clerks@becket-chambers.co.uk
