The issue of forced access for gas and electrical safety inspections continues to divide the County Court, with conflicting decisions on whether courts can authorise forced entry.
As social landlords increasingly seek to vary existing access orders to include forced-entry provisions, the latest decision in Stonewater Limited v Harris provides further support for that approach. Although the issue has yet to be determined by a higher court, recent County Court decisions have increasingly favoured granting forced access, suggesting a growing judicial willingness to grant such relief in appropriate cases.
Overview
In Stonewater Limited v Harris (Southampton County Court, HHJ Glen, 18 May 2026), the court considered a question of increasing importance for social landlords:
Can the court authorise a landlord to force entry to a tenant’s home to carry out gas or electrical safety inspections where the tenant repeatedly fails to provide access?
The judgment provides useful guidance on the scope of CPR 70.2A(2) and confirms that, in principle, the court has jurisdiction to make such orders.
Background
The tenant repeatedly failed to engage with requests for access to enable the landlord to carry out an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR), despite:
- numerous requests for access;
- repeated warnings regarding the consequences of non-compliance;
- an express tenancy clause requiring access for inspections and repairs; and
- an existing injunction requiring the tenant to provide access.
Following further failed attempts to gain entry, the landlord applied for an order permitting forced entry.
The legal issue
The central question was whether CPR 70.2A(2), which permits the court to authorise another person to perform an act required by an injunction, extends to allowing a landlord to obtain access by forced entry where a tenant fails to comply with an access order.
The issue has given rise to conflicting County Court decisions:
- Sovereign Housing Association Ltd v Hall (2024) – supported the use of CPR 70.2A to authorise forced access.
- Southern Housing v Emmanuel (2025) – held that the court had no jurisdiction to authorise forced entry and that landlords must instead rely on contempt or possession proceedings.
- Taylor Clark Ltd v Mohamed (2026) – declined to follow Emmanuel and held that CPR 70.2A could be used to facilitate access where a tenant failed to comply with an injunction.
- Plymouth Community Homes Ltd v Hammond (2026) – adopted a similarly broad interpretation of CPR 70.2A.
The decision
HHJ Glen concluded that District Judges do have power, in principle, to make orders permitting forced entry for gas and electrical safety inspections.
The court rejected the argument that a tenancy clause requiring access amounts to automatic consent for a landlord to enter without permission. A tenancy clause to permit access is a contractual promise to co-operate, not a standing consent to entry.
However, the court accepted that the relevant “act” for the purposes of CPR 70.2A is not simply opening a door, but enabling access to occur. Where a tenant has failed to facilitate access despite an injunction requiring them to do so, the court may authorise the landlord to achieve that outcome by other means.
Practical guidance for social landlords
The judgment identifies several key considerations to note:
- Forced entry should not ordinarily form part of the first access injunction.
-
Landlords should generally obtain an injunction and seek relief under CPR 70.2A only if the tenant subsequently fails to comply.
- The court will expect evidence regarding the tenant’s circumstances and any known vulnerabilities.
- At least 48 hours’ notice should ordinarily be given before any forced entry takes place.
- Entry should not proceed if the tenant is present and actively opposing access.
- The installation of a key safe following access was endorsed as good practice.
What does this mean for social landlords?
The decision will be welcomed by social landlords who continue to face difficulties obtaining access to properties for statutory gas and electrical safety inspections.
HHJ Glen confirmed that, in principle, the court can authorise forced entry under CPR 70.2A following a tenant’s failure to comply with an access injunction. The judgment also provides useful practical guidance, including that landlords should generally obtain an access injunction first, provide at least 48 hours’ notice of any proposed entry, and address any known vulnerabilities within the household.
Importantly, the court recognised the practical difficulties faced by landlords where access is repeatedly refused. HHJ Glen noted that alternatives such as committal proceedings can be costly and disproportionate, whilst possession proceedings may amount to using a “sledgehammer to crack a nut”.
However, the legal position remains unsettled. Whilst Sovereign Housing Association Ltd v Hall, Taylor Clark Ltd v Mohamed, Plymouth Community Homes Ltd v Hammond and now Stonewater Ltd v Harris all support forced access orders, Southern Housing v Emmanuel remains authority to the contrary.
The overall trend appears to be moving in favour of permitting forced access in appropriate cases. Nevertheless, until the issue is considered by the High Court or Court of Appeal, landlords should continue to prepare robust evidence on necessity, proportionality, vulnerabilities and efforts made to secure access voluntarily.
If you would like to discuss further, please get in touch with our housing management team.