As part of Clarke Willmott’s Housing Week, I gave an overview of the ongoing forced access injunction saga and the conflicting county court decisions that have emerged over the last few years. Whilst the sector continues to await High Court consideration of the key issues, recent cases provide some useful practical guidance that social landlords can implement now to place themselves in the best possible position when seeking access orders.
The key themes from the existing authorities remain unchanged. Courts continue to expect landlords to demonstrate genuine and sustained attempts to secure voluntary access before resorting to litigation. Clear records of appointments offered, communication attempts, support offered to tenants and consideration of vulnerabilities remain critical. Following Stonewater Ltd v Harris, providers should also consider whether their access injunction templates require updating, particularly in relation to provisions dealing with notice before attendance and practical arrangements such as key safes.
Similarly, most courts continue to favour a staged approach. Whilst there are exceptions, many judges remain reluctant to grant forced entry powers at the first hearing. Instead, the general expectation is that an access injunction will first be obtained and, if breached, a further application can then be made to seek authority for entry.
A further practical point arising from the recent decisions is that where a tenant is physically present and actively refusing access, landlords should exercise caution and seek further legal advice rather than attempting to force entry. Whilst this is not generally something that would appear in the wording of an order itself, it is an important operational consideration for teams planning access attempts.
New decision: Bromford Housing Association Ltd v Robinson (14 October 2026)
A further county court judgment has now been handed down in Bromford Housing Association Ltd v Robinson, which is notable because the court was prepared to grant not only an access injunction but also a “rolled-up” order permitting forced entry in default.
The case concerned repeated failures to obtain access for a five-year electrical inspection. The landlord had made numerous attempts to secure access, including letters, telephone calls, emails, text messages, multiple appointments and engagement around the tenant’s personal circumstances and vulnerabilities. The court was satisfied that extensive efforts had been made before proceedings were issued.
The judgment is significant for several reasons.
First, it provides another example of a court accepting that CPR 70.2A can be used to authorise forced access where a tenant fails to comply with an access injunction. The Recorder expressly preferred the reasoning in Stonewater Ltd v Harris and disagreed with the approach taken in Southern Housing v Emmanuel.
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the court was willing to make a rolled-up order at the first hearing. Although HHJ Glen in Stonewater indicated that such orders would not normally be appropriate, the Recorder considered that where there was a clear history of repeated refusals, requiring a landlord to return to court for a second hearing would create unnecessary delay and cost. The court therefore granted access injunction relief together with a provision for forced entry in the event of continued non-compliance.
Practical consideration for social landlords
Whilst the High Court’s decision remains awaited, Bromford reinforces a number of practical points that providers should consider:
- Maintain detailed evidence of all attempts to obtain access, including letters, calls, emails, texts and attendance records.
- Ensure evidence addresses any known vulnerabilities and demonstrates what support has been offered to overcome barriers to access.
- Carry out and document proportionality and Equality Act assessments before issuing proceedings.
- Consider updating injunction wording to reflect recent authorities, including notice provisions before attendance and practical arrangements for access.
- Continue preparing applications on the basis that many courts may still prefer a two-stage process.
- Where there is a particularly strong history of non-compliance, consider whether there is a basis for seeking a rolled-up order, supported by detailed evidence explaining why a further hearing would be disproportionate
- Consider carefully the cause of action relied upon. Interestingly, the Recorder questioned whether the Electrical Safety Standards Regulations themselves provide a standalone basis for obtaining access, given that the regulations expressly provide that landlords will not be in breach where reasonable steps have been taken but access is refused. Instead, the court granted relief based upon the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s statutory rights under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Providers should therefore ensure that applications are not solely framed around compliance with electrical safety obligations and should clearly identify all contractual and statutory rights of access available
Whilst the decision does not resolve the wider debate around forced access powers, it is another helpful authority for social landlords seeking access for compliance and safety purposes. The judgment reinforces the importance of comprehensive evidence gathering, proportionality assessments and engagement with tenants before proceedings are issued. It also demonstrates that, in the right circumstances, some courts remain willing to grant rolled-up orders where there is a clear history of persistent non-compliance and where requiring a landlord to return to court would serve little practical purpose. Until the anticipated High Court guidance arrives, providers should continue to review their procedures, evidence gathering processes and injunction templates to ensure they reflect the evolving case law.
If you would like to discuss further, please get in touch with our housing management team.