Landlords have legal duties to keep their properties safe, including regular gas and electrical checks, but can only carry them out if they can get into the home. So what happens when a tenant repeatedly refuses to let them in? A recent County Court decision shows the courts will step in to order access, and may now go as far as authorising a landlord to enter by force.

The right and duty of access

Landlords, social and private alike, must keep the structure and key installations of a let property in repair and meet a growing list of safety requirements, including electrical safety inspections and an annual gas check. None of this is practicable without access to the property.

The law reflects this from both directions. Most tenancy agreements expressly entitle the landlord to enter and inspect the condition of the property, while Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA) 1985 grants the right of access to view the condition and state of repair of the property. The corresponding duty on the tenant is to allow reasonable access, on proper notice, to inspect and do the work. Access of this kind is not an intrusion for its own sake; it is how the landlord discharges duties that exist to protect the tenant.

What happened in this case?

A housing association had been unable to access one of its properties to conduct an electrical safety inspection that was, by the time of the hearing, considerably overdue. Despite repeated appointments, follow-up contact and a formal warning of legal action, access was not granted. The landlord applied to the County Court for an injunction requiring access, together with permission to gain entry by force if access continued to be refused.

The Court granted the access order. Both the tenancy terms and the statutory repairing covenant plainly entitled the landlord to inspect the electrical wiring, and there was no real answer to the claim. The Judge then went further and authorised the landlord to gain entry by other means if the tenant still refused to cooperate. He made what is known as a "rolled-up" order at the first hearing, which means that the tenant must comply by a given date, failing which the landlord may force entry a short time later on the ground that there was a real risk that the tenant would not comply.

In summary:

• Landlords can seek County Court injunctions to secure access for statutory safety inspections when tenants persistently refuse entry.
• Based on this specific case ruling, judges can issue "rolled-up" orders (access and forced entry) that explicitly authorise landlords to use force to enter if a tenant continues to ignore access deadlines.
• As County Court rulings are non-binding on other courts and judges are currently divided on the matter, the legal authority to permit forced entry remains unsettled.
• Courts will not grant these orders easily, and landlords must present clear, comprehensive records of reasonable attempts, scheduled appointments, and formal warnings.
• Persistent non-cooperation is a failing legal strategy that can result in court mandates, liability for the landlord's legal costs, and even forcible entry into the home.

Implications:

For social landlords, and especially social landlords who frequently encounter this problem, the decision is helpful – you can obtain a court order to secure access for a legally required safety check, and, on this line of authority, potentially an order permitting forced entry where a tenant persistently refuses. But it is not a shortcut. The Court will expect to see a clear record of your attempts, appointments and warnings, and to illustrate that you acted reasonably and proportionately, taking the tenant's circumstances into account.

For tenants, refusing access to a safety inspection is not a tenable strategy to keep the landlord out. Persistent refusal can lead to a court order, a bill for the landlord's costs, and, ultimately, forcible entry. If there is a genuine practical difficulty, for instance ill health or something physically blocking access, the answer is to raise it with the landlord early and engage constructively. If this leads to an impasse and court action, it is advisable to attend any court hearing rather than to ignore it.

There is, however, one important caveat: as this was a County Court decision, one which does not bind other courts, judges are currently divided on whether a court can authorise forced entry in this way at all, with other recent decisions taking opposing views. The dispute centres upon the Court’s enforcement power under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 70.2A, which lets a court authorise someone else to do an act the defendant won’t, and covers forced entry. While this shift is in favour of landlords, the law on this specific point remains unsettled, and may yet be clarified by a higher court or by formal changes to the existing regulations.

The safe course, on both sides, is cooperation: landlords giving proper notice and some flexibility, and tenants allowing access for checks that exist, ultimately, to keep them and their neighbours safe.

Disclaimer:  This simplified summary of a UK legal case is for general information only. It is based on a claim issued in the County Court. It is not intended as legal advice, may omit important detail, and may not reflect any subsequent developments or appeals. Please read the full judgement and seek professional legal advice before acting.