In the case of Southern Housing v Emmanuel [2025] EWCC 58, the County Court was asked to vary an existing access injunction to permit Southern Housing to forcibly enter Mr Emmanuel’s property to carry out a gas safety inspection. Mr Emmanuel, an assured tenant, had repeatedly failed to comply with previous court orders requiring access.
District Judge Cridge dismissed the application, holding that the County Court does not have jurisdiction to authorise forced entry into a tenant’s home for inspections, repairs, or safety checks. The judgment emphasised that such powers must derive from express statutory authority or established common law principles—not from procedural rules alone.
Southern Housing relied on various provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), including rules 70.2A, 25.1(1)(c)/(d), and 3.1(2)(p), to support its application. However, the court found that these rules govern enforcement mechanisms and case management but do not confer substantive rights to override a tenant’s right to exclusive possession. In particular, CPR 70.2A allows enforcement of existing orders but cannot be used to vary an injunction to permit a new act such as forced entry.
The court acknowledged the practical difficulties faced by landlords in enforcing access injunctions, especially where tenants are non-compliant. However, it concluded that the appropriate legal remedies remain contempt proceedings or possession claims. The judge noted inconsistencies in judicial approaches across County Courts and suggested that any reform to permit forced entry in such circumstances would need to come from Parliament.
It is important to note that this decision was made in the County Court and therefore does not create binding precedent. However, it marks a departure from earlier judicial approaches in similar cases. In Sovereign Housing Association v Hall [2024] , the court adopted a more practical stance, suggesting that enforcement of access injunctions could justify authorising entry where compliance was repeatedly refused. Similarly, in Metropolitan Housing Trust v Cifci [2024], the court interpreted that forced entry could be granted in default of access being provided, effectively allowing landlords to enforce injunctions through physical entry. The decision in Southern Housing v Emmanuel contrasts with these earlier cases by firmly rejecting the notion that procedural rules or judicial discretion alone can authorise such entry, reinforcing the need for express statutory authority.
If you would like to discuss further please get in touch with our housing management team.