Breaking in: the legalities of forced entry in access injunctions

A topic we are constantly advising on is the increasing use of forced entry provisions in access injunctions - and what landlords can rely on to secure such orders.

Historically, social housing providers have faced an uphill struggle in obtaining forced entry provisions on access injunctions. The approach in the courts and among judges regarding the allowance of forced entry remains inconsistent, with varying interpretations and decisions across cases. As a result, social landlords have often been forced to consider committal for access cases, which is generally does not assist in completing essential gas or electrical safety inspections, or essential repair works.

In recent case law, however, we have seen the courts allowing forced entry in cases involving access injunctions, a shift that has been widely regarded as a positive development for social landlords. This change should streamline the process of gaining access to properties for essential maintenance, repairs, or inspections, which had previously been hindered by tenants’ failure to engage and/or failure to allow access. While there are some conflicting views around forced entry generally, it is a much-needed legal tool to ensure that properties remain in safe and habitable conditions, ultimately benefiting both landlords and tenants alike. The courts are making it easier for social housing providers to fulfil their obligations while maintaining the integrity and safety of their properties.

In the recent case of Sovereign Housing Association Limited v Jane Hall (2024), Sovereign obtained an injunction requiring the tenant to allow access in in order for the landlord to complete a gas safety inspection. The original order did not include provision for forced entry, and upon the tenant failing to allow access following service of the original injunction order, Sovereign applied for an order permitting forced entry which was refused by the courts. The basis for such refusal, was lack of jurisdiction and the court noted that committal proceedings would be the next step for failure to comply with any such injunction order. Sovereign appealed this decision - arguing that under the courts powers in terms of general case management (CPR 3.1 (2) (m)) and enforcement of compliance (CPR 70.2A). The Circuit Judge was persuaded that there were sufficient powers to grant forced entry, and although the case is only at County Court level, and therefore is not binding, it can be cited as a compelling argument to assist in obtaining such orders. 

This has been a significant change from previous matters involving non-compliance on access injunctions where landlords have been forced to turn to committal proceedings as a resolution. Previously, the courts have however made findings on breach and have imposed sentencing. In Midland Heart Limited v Brown (2023) - the court adjourned sentencing for a two week period to allow compliance, and subsequently granted an order giving the tenant 48 hours' to allow access, failing which 14 days imprisonment would follow. We see a similar approach in Hicks v Pervaiz & anor (2020) whereby a sentence of 14 days imprisonment was ordered, suspended on terms that the tenant complied with the original injunction order. 

The committal approach can not only be ineffective but also costly, placing further burdens on social landlords. The recent shift in approach, however, potentially encourages a more efficient and practical solution. 

If you would like to discuss further please get in touch with our housing management team.