In Southern Housing v Mr James Emmanuel [2025] EWCC 58, District Judge Cridge sitting at the County Court at Bromley determined that a Judge cannot permit a landlord to force entry into their tenant’s property for the purposes of carrying out repairs or safety checks. Permission to appeal was granted but, at the date of writing, no appeal has been lodged.

Background

The original claim was for a mandatory injunction order after the Defendant, Mr Emmanuel, had refused his landlord access for a gas safety inspection. The Claimant applied to vary the original injunction to include provision for forced access, after the Defendant continued to deny access. The Claimant’s application was dismissed with the District Judge stating that “A Judge of the County Court has no power to make the order sought”. The Claimant made a further application to set aside that order which was also refused.

The Decision

The District Judge rejected the argument that the Court had the power to permit a landlord to enter one of their tenanted properties by force.

DJ Cridge held that a common law right of forced entry did not exist and such a right could not be read into legislation without the express authority of Parliament. DJ Cridge further held that no provision allowing forced access existed within Regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1988, the County Courts Act 1984 or the Senior Courts Act 1981.

The Claimant sought to rely on CPR 70.2A and argued that providing forced entry under this rule would be enabling the Injunction to be ‘enforced’. The Judge also rejected this approach, holding that this rule related to assisting with the enforcement of orders and not to varying a previous order.

The Claimant sought further to rely on CPR 25.1(1) and CPR 3.1(2)(p). CPR 25.1(1) provides a list of interim remedies that includes the power to grant an order permitting access to “any land or building”. The Judge concluded that nothing in the wording of 25.1(1) permitted forced entry. DJ Cridge agreed with the preliminary finding of HHJ Berkley in Sovereign v Hall (Bristol County Court) 10 July 2024 in that 3.1(2)(p) was not wide enough to allow a court to make an order that permits forced entry.

The contrast with Sovereign v Hall (Bristol County Court) 10 July 2024

The Claimant in Sovereign applied for an order permitting forced entry under CPR 25.1, which was refused. The Claimant then appealed and HHJ Berkley overturned the original decision and granted forced access. It was held in the appeal that the Court did have the authority to grant an order permitting forced access.

HHJ Berkley relied on CPR 70.2A and deemed that forced access could be ordered because the Defendant had not complied with a mandatory order of the Court. HHJ Berkley held that the Court was empowered to make such an order under 70.2A because the Defendant was a “disobedient party”.

Comment

It should be noted that the decisions in Sovereign and Southern Housing are decisions of the County Court, so they are not binding but may be persuasive. In Southern Housing, District Judge Cridge did grant permission to appeal but an appeal has not yet been lodged.

District Judge Cridge’s decision has cast fresh doubt over this area of law and the Courts continue to adopt a variety of approaches. It would appear, on the basis of both decisions discussed in this article, that it is open for a Court to conclude that they either do or do not have the power to grant forced access. It is apparent that it would be desirable for a higher Court to provide some definitive guidance on this point.

Jacob Catterall