Southern Housing v Emmanuel [2025]
This County Court decision held that the court does not have jurisdiction to authorise forced entry for inspections, repairs or safety checks. DJ Cridge found that such powers must come from express statute or established common law, and cannot be derived from the CPR alone. The judgment reinforced that landlords must instead rely on contempt or possession proceedings where tenants refuse access.
Taylor Clark Ltd v Mohamed [2026]
In this later decision, dated 5 March 2026, DJ Le Bas declined to follow Southern Housing v Emmanuel, finding that it was wrong in principle. The court accepted that where an injunction requires a tenant to “permit” or “allow” access, the court may facilitate that access – if necessary by enabling entry in a manner consistent with the tenancy covenants. The judge also relied on Hall and similar authorities, confirming that where a mandatory order for access exists, and the tenant fails to comply, the court may permit the door to be opened “by or as far as practicable” by another person.
What does this mean for social landlords?
We now have two conflicting County Court decisions on whether forced entry can be authorised. The legal position remains uncertain and is an area to watch. However, for landlords seeking forced entry to enforce an access injunction, Taylor Clark Ltd v Mohamed provides a supportive and well-reasoned basis for citation in applications, and is currently the more helpful authority for social landlords.
If you would like to discuss further, please get in touch with our housing management team.