Landlords have a legal responsibility to keep rented homes safe. However, carrying out those duties becomes extremely difficult when a tenant repeatedly refuses access for essential gas or electrical inspections.
A new County Court judgment has provided landlords with a clearer route through that deadlock. In Stonewater Limited v Rosie Marie Harris [2026] EWCC 42, His Honour Judge Glen concluded that courts can, in principle, authorise a landlord to force entry into a rented property so that gas or electrical safety inspections can be completed.
The judgment is important, but it must not be misunderstood. It does not give landlords a general power to enter whenever a tenant fails to answer the door. Forced access remains an exceptional measure requiring a court order, strong evidence and a carefully controlled process.
What happened in the case?
Stonewater had repeatedly attempted to gain access to a tenant’s home to carry out an Electrical Installation Condition Report.
The tenancy agreement required the tenant to provide access at reasonable times, normally after at least 48 hours’ notice. During 2025, contractors and the landlord made a series of attempts to arrange the inspection, but received no response.
Stonewater therefore obtained an injunction in January 2026 ordering the tenant to provide access. That order was personally served, but three further attempts to enter the property were unsuccessful.
The landlord then returned to court and asked for permission to use reasonable force, including drilling the locks, if the tenant continued to ignore the access order.
On 13 July 2026, Judge Glen ruled that courts do have the power under Civil Procedure Rule 70.2A to authorise a landlord to gain access when an earlier injunction has not been obeyed.
Why was the ruling necessary?
The courts had previously reached conflicting conclusions.
In Southern Housing v Emmanuel, a judge decided that the County Court could not authorise forced entry for a gas inspection without an express statutory power. The landlord’s alternatives were contempt proceedings against the tenant or possession action.
Later County Court decisions took a different approach, concluding that where a tenant had already been ordered to permit access, the court could authorise somebody else to carry out the necessary act of enabling entry.
Judge Glen agreed with that wider interpretation. He considered contempt proceedings potentially lengthy and expensive, while possession proceedings could amount to using a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” when the landlord’s real objective was simply to complete a safety inspection.
When could forced access be authorised?
The ruling indicates that an order may be available where:
- access is required for an essential gas or electrical safety inspection;
- the landlord has made repeated and properly documented attempts to arrange access;
- suitable notice and reasonable appointment options have been offered;
- the tenant has failed to engage or has repeatedly prevented the inspection;
- the tenancy gives the landlord a contractual right of access;
- the landlord has obtained an injunction requiring the tenant to provide access;
- the tenant has then failed to comply with that injunction; and
- the landlord returns to court for a further order under CPR 70.2A.
The judgment therefore envisages a staged process. Forced access would not normally be authorised simply because a tenant missed one appointment or failed to answer one letter.
It is not an automatic right to break in
The most important point for private landlords is that they must not interpret the judgment as permission to take matters into their own hands.
Official Health and Safety Executive guidance continues to state that landlords must not use force to enter a property. Where a tenant obstructs a gas safety check, landlords should keep records of correspondence, leave notices after failed visits, explain the legal and safety reasons for the inspection and offer the tenant opportunities to arrange a suitable appointment.
Unless there is a genuine emergency or a sufficiently clear contractual provision permitting entry in particular circumstances, a landlord who drills a lock or enters without the tenant’s consent or a court order could still face allegations of trespass, harassment or unlawful interference with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
A standard tenancy clause giving the landlord access after 24 or 48 hours’ notice does not necessarily mean the landlord can enter merely because that notice has expired. Notice does not, by itself, cancel the tenant’s right to exclusive possession.
What safeguards did the judge require?
Judge Glen made clear that the tenant’s privacy, home and Article 8 rights must be properly considered.
He identified several safeguards.
An access order should normally come first
Although the court might technically make a combined order at the first hearing, authorising forced entry automatically if the tenant did not comply, the judge said that would not normally be appropriate.
The usual route is likely to be:
- repeated requests and attempted appointments;
- an injunction ordering the tenant to provide access;
- further failed attempts after the injunction; and
- a separate application asking the court to authorise entry.
The court must be told about vulnerabilities
Landlords applying for an order should provide information about the tenant and other members of the household, including any known physical disabilities, mental health concerns, safeguarding issues or other vulnerabilities.
This may influence whether forced entry is proportionate and how any visit should be conducted.
At least 48 hours’ notice should be given
Any forced-access order should normally require the landlord to provide at least 48 hours’ notice before attempting entry.
That notice should clearly explain the date, approximate time, purpose of entry and who will attend.
Entry should not proceed against active resistance
The judge said landlords should not proceed if the tenant is present and actively opposing entry.
The order considered in the case was aimed principally at situations where nobody appeared to be home and access could be gained safely, rather than authorising a physical confrontation with an occupier.
Any damage should be repaired
Where a lock must be drilled, the landlord should make good the damage and secure the property afterwards. The proposed order also included fitting a key safe, which the judge described as good practice.
What does this mean for tenants?
Tenants retain the right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of their homes. A landlord cannot use this ruling to conduct surprise inspections, check how a tenant is living or enter simply because an appointment is convenient for the landlord.
Tenants can ask for appointments to be rearranged, request identification from contractors and raise legitimate concerns about timing, vulnerability, security or who will be attending.
However, the right to quiet enjoyment does not entitle a tenant to obstruct essential safety checks indefinitely.
Gas and electrical inspections are intended to protect the tenant, other members of the household, neighbouring properties and the wider building. Continued refusal may expose the tenant to an injunction, legal costs, contempt proceedings, possession action and, following this ruling, a court order permitting entry without their cooperation.
Does the ruling apply to private landlords?
Stonewater is a housing association, but the legal principle considered by the court was not limited exclusively to social landlords.
A private landlord may potentially rely on the same court procedure where the tenancy contains an appropriate access covenant and the landlord can demonstrate a genuine need to complete gas or electrical safety work.
However, this remains a County Court judgment. It is persuasive rather than binding on every other County Court, and another judge could reach a different conclusion until the issue is resolved by a higher court or Parliament.
Private landlords should therefore obtain specialist legal advice before seeking an injunction or any forced-access provision.
What about emergencies?
A genuine emergency is different from a routine or overdue inspection.
Immediate entry may sometimes be justified where there is a reasonable belief that urgent action is required to prevent serious injury or major damage—for example:
- a suspected gas escape;
- fire or smoke;
- serious flooding;
- water pouring into another property;
- an immediate electrical danger; or
- concern that someone inside may be seriously injured.
Emergency entry must still be reasonable and proportionate. Where appropriate, landlords should involve the emergency services, gas emergency service, police, local authority or utility provider rather than attempting to deal with a dangerous situation personally.
An overdue gas certificate or electrical report is important, but the fact that a check has become due does not automatically turn the situation into an emergency.
The importance of the tenancy agreement
Judge Glen also suggested that tenancy agreements could contain carefully written clauses under which the tenant gives express consent to entry in their absence when specified conditions have been met.
Such wording would need to be very different from a simple promise to “allow access”. It would need to state clearly when entry in the tenant’s absence was permitted, the notice required, the purposes for which it could be used and the safeguards that would apply.
Landlords should not simply add an aggressive forced-entry clause to a tenancy agreement and assume it will always be enforceable. Any term must be fair, transparent, proportionate and compatible with the tenant’s statutory rights.
Existing agreements should be reviewed professionally before landlords rely on their wording to enter an occupied home.
What landlords should do when access is refused
Landlords should build a clear evidence trail from the first missed appointment.
Keep copies of:
- letters, emails and text messages requesting access;
- proof that notices were delivered;
- dates and times offered to the tenant;
- contractor appointment confirmations;
- records of failed visits;
- photographs of any attendance notices left at the property;
- explanations given to the tenant about the safety requirement;
- offers allowing the tenant to choose an alternative appointment;
- information about known vulnerabilities; and
- any replies or reasons given for refusing access.
Communication should remain calm and focused on safety. The landlord should try to understand whether the problem is caused by inconvenient appointment times, fear of contractors entering alone, illness, disability, language difficulties or another concern that can be resolved without litigation.
Where repeated reasonable attempts fail, the next step is legal advice—not an unannounced visit with a locksmith.
A useful ruling, but only for genuine deadlock
The judgment offers landlords a practical alternative to prosecuting a tenant for contempt or seeking possession of the property merely to complete a safety inspection.
It also recognises the impossible position landlords can face when the law requires them to complete safety checks but the occupier refuses to provide access.
Nevertheless, forced entry must remain a last resort. A landlord will need to demonstrate that the inspection is genuinely necessary, reasonable attempts have been exhausted, the tenant has ignored an access injunction and the proposed arrangements properly protect everyone in the household.
The ruling has opened a door for landlords dealing with serious and persistent access obstruction. It has not given them permission to break one down without first obtaining the authority of the court.
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Landlords facing persistent refusal of access should take advice from a solicitor experienced in housing and landlord-and-tenant law before taking action.
The legal distinction is central: the ruling supports court-authorised access following persistent non-compliance, not informal forced entry by landlords.