Forced access injunctions revisited: Stonewater Limited v Harris

The Case

Stonewater Limited v Rosie Marie Harris [2026] EWCC 42 is the latest case to consider the issue of forced access injunctions in the context of a tenant's refusal to allow access for safety-critical inspections or works.

In the course of 2025, Stonewater, a social housing landlord, made a series of requests to its tenant for access to carry out an Electrical Installation Condition Report. Faced with a complete lack of response from the tenant, the landlord issued a claim and applied for interim relief. The primary relief sought was a mandatory order that the tenant provide access on 48 hours' prior notice, with a further provision that — if the tenant failed to comply — the landlord be permitted to use reasonable force by drilling the locks to obtain access, only where it appeared safe to do so and that no one was present at the property. The second part of the application was not granted, and, when the tenant duly failed to provide access, the landlord returned to court to ask for an order allowing forced access.

The Judgment

HHJ Glen helpfully reviewed the recent case law as regards the court's powers under CPR Rule 70.2A to grant forced access. The judgment in the case of Southern Housing v Emmanuel [2026] held that there is no statutory or common law basis on which the court can order forced access, and CPR 70.2A does not assist because the 'act' required to be ordered is to 'allow' access, and the landlord cannot 'allow' access from the outside of the flat.

Following this, Taylor-Clark Ltd v Mohamed [2026] did allow for a forced access injunction, on the basis that the tenant access clause in the lease could be understood as a contractually binding requirement to give consent, such that the access injunction simply gave effect to that consent.

Finally, in Plymouth Community Homes Ltd v Hammond [2026] the judge allowed forced access but not on the basis of giving effect to a binding consent but using a 'purposive' interpretation of the act to be enforced, such that granting access could be, when carried out by a third party, achieved from the outside by forcing entry.

HHJ Glen rejected the interpretation in Southern Housing, that the court cannot interfere at all with the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment, pointing out that a court could authorise entry into a private home, even without express statutory authority, as shown by the use of search and imaging orders.

He agreed however, contrary to the decision in Taylor-Clark Ltd and following Plymouth Community Homes Ltd, that the obligation to provide access cannot be interpretated as consent necessarily given. Access must be given, but that does not force consent, it forces access. He held that the purposive interpretation, that access can be 'granted' by forced entry, must be right, the alternative being heavy-handed and disproportionate measures such as a possession order.

The Necessary Steps

While the decision will be welcome to landlords, in reinforcing the line of reasoning that holds that the court can grant forced entry, JHHJ Glen did not approve of the attempt to roll into the original order a supplement that allowed forced entry if the tenant did not abide by the original access injunction.

Landlords should obtain an access injunction, and then return to the court for an order allowing forced entry only if the tenant refuses to abide by the injunction.

On return to court, the landlord should provide any information regarding the tenant's vulnerabilities. Forced entry should be on 48 hours' notice and should not proceed if the tenant is in the property and resisting.

In addition, the judge approved a provision in the order for leaving the new keys in a key safe affixed to the wall of the flat, to allow the tenant to easily re-enter the flat.

Implications for future Claims

This is a County Court judgment and so does not create a binding precedent although it is "persuasive". It is to be hoped that the weight of the recent judgments falls now firmly on the right to grant a forced entry order, but until we have a higher court's decision , there is always the risk that individual judges may choose to follow Southern Housing.

New Clauses?

Interestingly, HHJ Glen noted that in this case, there was a provision in the lease for an express consent clause permitting entry in the tenant's absence in an emergency. He added that where there is a carefully drafted clause for express consent in specified circumstances that 'Entry in such circumstances would not be a trespass, nor would a landlord obviously require the sanction of the Court to do something it was contractually entitled to do'. It is certainly worth considering having a forced entry clause when reviewing and re-drafting tenancy agreements but a binding precedent from a higher court as to acting on such a clause is awaited.