A recent County Court decision has provided welcome clarity on one of the most difficult practical issues facing landlords: what happens when a tenant repeatedly refuses access for essential inspections?
In Stonewater Ltd v Harris [2026] EWCC 42, HHJ Glen considered whether the court has the power, under CPR 70.2A, to authorise a landlord to force entry into a rented property in order to carry out gas or electrical safety inspections after a tenant has failed to comply with an access injunction. The judgment answered that question with a clear “yes”, holding that District Judges do, in principle, possess such a power.
While this remains County Court authority and awaits consideration by a higher court, the decision is likely to become the leading case on forced access injunctions and will be of considerable interest to housing associations, local authorities and housing litigators.
The Background
Stonewater sought access to a tenant’s property to carry out an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR). The tenancy agreement contained an express covenant requiring the tenant to permit access for inspections and repairs. Despite repeated requests, warnings and subsequent court proceedings, access was continually refused.
The landlord ultimately obtained an injunction requiring the tenant to provide access. However, even after the injunction had been granted, the tenant continued to obstruct entry. This raised the key question:
Can the court authorise the landlord to obtain access by force where a tenant refuses to comply with an access injunction?
The answer to that question required the court to consider the scope of CPR 70.2A.
What is CPR 70.2A?
In simple terms, CPR 70.2A is an enforcement mechanism.
Where a court orders a person to carry out a specific act and that person refuses to comply, the rule allows the court to authorise another person to carry out the required act instead.
The real dispute in Stonewater was how the relevant “act” should be identified.
Some previous decisions had effectively treated the act as the tenant opening the door. HHJ Glen rejected that approach. Instead, he held that the relevant act was:
“enabling the landlord to obtain access.”
If access cannot be achieved through the tenant’s cooperation, the court may therefore authorise access to be achieved by another means.
Why This Decision Matters in Practice
This is the aspect of the judgment that is likely to have the greatest practical significance.
For many years, landlords have faced a frustrating enforcement gap.
A tenant could:
- Be contractually obliged to provide access;
- Ignore repeated appointment requests;
- Ignore warning letters;
- Ignore pre-action correspondence;
- Become subject to an injunction requiring access; and
- Still refuse to open the door.
Historically, landlords were often left with two unattractive options:
- Committal proceedings for contempt of court; or
- Possession proceedings.
Neither option directly resolved the underlying problem.
Committal proceedings can be expensive, procedurally complex and time-consuming. Possession proceedings are frequently disproportionate where the landlord’s true objective is simply to carry out a gas safety inspection or electrical inspection. In the meantime, the landlord remains unable to discharge important health and safety obligations.
The significance of Stonewater is that it potentially transforms an access injunction from a piece of paper into an effective remedy.
Under HHJ Glen’s interpretation:
- The landlord obtains an injunction requiring access.
- The tenant breaches the injunction.
- The court may authorise the landlord to achieve the required access through another mechanism.
- In an appropriate case, that may include entry by a locksmith accompanied by contractors undertaking the inspection.
For organisations managing thousands of homes, that is potentially a transformative development.
CPR 70.2A Has Real Teeth
Key points:
- The relevant act is “enabling access” rather than physically opening the door.
- The court can authorise another method of achieving that outcome where the tenant refuses to cooperate.
- Access injunctions can therefore become meaningful enforcement tools rather than merely precursors to further litigation.
Health and Safety Considerations Matter
The judgment is heavily influenced by practical safety concerns.
The court recognised that:
- Gas safety inspections protect both tenants and neighbouring occupiers.
- Electrical safety inspections serve an important public safety function.
- Landlords must be able to comply with statutory and regulatory obligations.
- Persistent refusals of access can create risks extending beyond the individual tenant.
Forced Access is Still a Last Resort
Landlords should not read Stonewater as creating an automatic right of entry.
Practitioners should continue to ensure that:
- Multiple attempts have been made to arrange access.
- Clear warnings have been provided.
- Vulnerability and welfare issues have been considered.
- Detailed witness evidence supports the application.
- Forced access is demonstrably proportionate in the circumstances.
The court’s message is clear: forced entry remains a remedy of last resort.
The Quality of the Tenancy Agreement Matters
The tenancy agreement in Stonewater contained an express access covenant. That highlights the importance of careful drafting. Housing providers should review their tenancy agreements to ensure:
- Access obligations are clearly stated.
- Inspection rights are unambiguous.
- Repair access provisions are comprehensive.
- Tenants are aware of the consequences of non-compliance.
- Strong tenancy drafting will not eliminate access disputes, but it significantly improves the landlord’s position when enforcement action becomes necessary.
Final Thoughts
Stonewater Ltd v Harris is important not because it creates a new right of access. Landlords have long relied on contractual and statutory rights of inspection.
Its significance lies elsewhere.
The decision provides what may finally be an effective mechanism for enforcing those rights where a tenant persistently refuses to cooperate. Instead of leaving landlords trapped in a cycle of injunctions, contempt proceedings and further delay, the judgment offers a practical route to achieving the outcome that the litigation was intended to secure in the first place.