Court ruling clarifies safety inspection access for landlords, but ‘caution still needed’

Judge Glen’s ruling - while not strictly of precedent value, as it is a county court decision - does give district and deputy district judges in England guidance on orders permitting landlords to force access to their properties if tenants have not responded to previous access requests.

Past rulings have taken conflicting views about to what extent landlords can force access and in what circumstances when a tenant has not responded to previous requests and there is a safety issue.

Ian Morgan, a property dispute resolution expert with Pinsent Masons, said landlords should “measure twice, cut once” when it comes to forced access bids, despite the ruling.

“For many landlords, particularly in the social housing and living sectors, resolving access issues create a difficult tension between respecting tenants' rights to quiet enjoyment and complying with statutory obligations relating to gas and electrical safety as well, by extension, to other common issues - such as essential fire alarm or safety works,” he explained.

“This judgment acknowledges that reality and confirms that, in appropriate cases, CPR 70.2A can be used to authorise forced access. It is a significant decision, as it provides a judicial roadmap along with practical and workable solutions for doing so, rather than because it creates an unrestricted power of entry.

“Landlords should continue to approach -access applications carefully, ensuring that they have exhausted reasonable attempts to obtain access, considered any vulnerabilities within the household and adopted a proportionate, reasoned, fact-sensitive approach appropriate to the circumstances – no two cases are likely to be the same.”

The case came after social housing provider Stonewater sought an order to allow it permission to force entry into one of its properties, after the tenant failed to respond to repeated access requests given with at least 48 hours’ notice – with the judge noting these were due to absence rather than refusal.

The case was specifically allocated to Judge Glen as a Designated Civil Judge (a senior district judge) to provide this guidance to other civil judges in England.

Previous rulings at county court level had denied access even for required safety inspections, but the judge distinguished this, saying: “To the extent that this involves a purposive interpretation of CPR70.2A(2), then in my judgment it is justified. The alternatives to granting the relief sought are both unattractive and disproportionate. Committal for contempt of court is often a complex, lengthy and expensive procedure and ultimately may not by itself necessarily produce the outcome sought.

“The issue of possession proceedings is truly an example of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is obviously important that proper regard is paid to a tenant’s property and Article 8 rights. It is however also important that regard is had to the safety of those who live around them if defects in gas or electrical installations go undetected.

“In my judgment, District Judges and Deputy District Judges do in principle have the power to make an order permitting landlords to force access to rented property in order to carry out gas and electrical safety inspections.”

However, the judge also stated that such judgments would require information regarding the household – including any potential vulnerabilities – and should require 48 hours’ prior notice, along with not continuing if the tenant is present and actively opposes entry.

Adding a key safe to the outside of a property to allow easier access than forced entry would be permittable, the judge said.

However, Morgan warned that the law around this could yet shift depending on future decisions in the wake of the judge’s decision.

“Although HHJ Glen has provided a detailed analysis and practical framework for these applications, this remains a County Court decision and the judgment itself acknowledges that other County Court judges have reached different conclusions on the scope of the legislation,” he said.

“The position therefore remains capable of further development, particularly if the issue reaches the appellate courts."