Introduction

HHJ Glen has delivered much needed guidance to Claimants in forced access cases in Stonewater Limited v Rosie Marie Harris [2026] EWCC 42. Readers may recall several previous articles outlining how Judges have grappled with these issues in earlier cases.

The Issue

The question before the court was whether the Court had the power when exercising jurisdiction under CPR70.2A(2) to order that a landlord may force entry to premises occupied by a tenant for the purposes of inspecting the gas or electrical installations at the premises?

Background

The parties entered into an assured shorthold tenancy on 05 December 2008. During 2025, the Claimant made numerous requests for access to the property so that they could carry out an Electrical Installation Condition Report. The Claimant issued the claim on 10 November 2025 due to a lack of response from the Defendant.

The Claimant sought a rolled-up order. They sought access to the property on 48 hours’ notice to the Defendant. The draft order included provision that if the Defendant fails to comply, then the Claimant is permitted to use reasonable force by drilling the locks to access the property.

On 05 January 2026, District Judge Pain granted an access injunction but did not allow the forced access clause. The Claimant made three attempts to obtain access on 48 hours’ notice each time.

On 02 March 2026 the Claimant made an application to vary District Judge Pain’s order to include the forced access clause. On 23 March 2026 the case was referred to HHK Glen as Designated Civil Judge in order to provide local guidance on this.

The Law

HHJ Glen went on to consider the following:

The purpose of CPR70.2(A) is to enable the court to appoint either a party or some other person to perform the order on behalf of the person who has failed to do so (Parker v Camden London Borough Council [1986] 1 Ch 162.

There has not been higher court authority on this exact issue.

HHJ Glen considered a number of conflicting county court decisions including Southern Housing v Mr James Emmanuel [2025] EWCC 58 (No forceful entry for safety) and Taylor Clark Ltd v Mohamed (unreported, Central London County Court, 5 March 2026) (Doubt on Forced Entry).

HHJ Glen rejected the “deemed consent” approach in Mohamed. He explained that where the tenant covenants to allow access, the tenant is binding themselves to contractually give access when asked to do so. They are not agreeing that the Landlord can enter the premises as and when notice is given.

HHJ Glen considered the key issue was identifying the ‘act’ for the purposes of CPR70.2A(2). He found that the core ‘act’ here was enabling the landlord to obtain access. Where it cannot be enabled by the tenant’s consent then CPR 70.2A(2) permits the Court to empower the landlord to enable access in another way.

Conclusion

HHJ Glen decided that in principle Judges do have the power to make an order permitting landlords to force access to rented property so that gas and electrical inspections can be carried out. This is subject to:

1. i) A “rolled up” order will normally not be appropriate in the first instance.
2. ii) The court will expect to be provided with information regarding he tenant and their household, including any information on potential vulnerabilities.
   iii) Any forced access order should require 48 hours prior notice, and the Claimant should not proceed where the tenant is present and opposes entry.
3. iv) The additional practice of affixing a key safe to the outside of the premises represents good practice.