Southern Housing v Emmanuel — what landlords need to know about forced access

What happens when tenants refuse access for essential safety checks? The recent case of Southern Housing v Emmanuel tackles this very issue, testing the limits of the court’s authority. 

The dispute centred on whether judges could extend access injunctions to grant landlords forced entry. The decision confirmed that the County Court lacks this jurisdiction, creating uncertainty given earlier, more interventionist decisions.

Here, Alice Willetts from our housing litigation team examines the judgment and what it means for landlords facing access refusals. 

Case background

The case arose after Southern Housing attempted to carry out a gas safety inspection required under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. Although an access injunction had already been granted against the tenant, they continued to refuse entry.

Southern Housing then applied to the courts to amend the injunction order to permit forced entry to the property. To support this, they relied on provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), including 25.1 (c)(d) and 3.1(2)(p) 70.2A.

Statutory limits on forced entry

District Judge Cridge rejected the application, ruling that the County Court doesn’t have jurisdiction to authorise landlords to forcibly enter a tenant’s home for inspections, repairs or safety checks. His assessment made clear that the power to authorise forced entry must come from common law principles or statutory authority — neither of which applied here. He emphasised that express authority of Parliament would be required, citing Morris v Beardmore (1981) AC 446. 

It was also noted that there’s no power of forced entry in Regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. Additionally, neither the County Courts Act 1984 nor the Senior Courts Act 1981 give the County Court authority to permit forced entry, except through a warrant of eviction. 

There’s an important distinction between the court’s authority to grant an access injunction and authorising landlords to forcibly enter. Permitting forced access to a property wouldn’t be a simple amendment to an injunction order under CPR 70.2A — it would be a different order entirely. 

While Judge Cridge confirmed that the County Court doesn’t have the power to authorise forced entry without new legislation from Parliament, he stressed that tenants who ignore an access injunction will face legal consequences. Once such an order is made, tenants are legally required to comply — if they refuse, they’re in breach of the injunction. That breach can carry criminal consequences, exposing tenants to prosecution and opening the door for landlords to pursue possession proceedings.

Departure from previous cases

This decision marks a departure from earlier County Court judgments where forced access clauses have been granted. 

For example: 

• Sovereign Housing Association Limited v Hall (2024) — forced access was permitted under CPR 70.
• Metropolitan Housing Trust v Cifci (2024) — forced access was allowed under CPR 21.1. In this case, it was ruled that drilling locks owned by the landlord wasn’t considered criminal damage.  

Judge Cridge’s decision challenges these precedents, potentially signalling a shift in judicial interpretation.

Implications for landlords

Judge Cridge acknowledged the difficulties landlords face when tenants refuse access. However, he stressed that contempt proceedings or possession claims are the proper remedies, not forced entry via amended injunctions. 

It’s important to note that this County Court decision isn’t binding and judges in different courts have made and can continue to make different decisions. 

The decision is however likely to be persuasive in future cases and landlords may want to consider how they’re going to deal with tenants who obstruct access, particularly in circumstances where they’re failing to comply with the terms of an injunction order. 

Talk to us

Landlords can find themselves in a difficult position when tenants refuse access for safety checks or essential works. Our property disputes and litigation specialists provide clear guidance on enforcing access rights, addressing breaches of injunctions and pursuing possession proceedings.

Talk to us by calling 0333 004 4488, emailing hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form below.