In the recent case of Sovereign Housing Association Limited v Ms Jane Hall, Bristol County Court confirmed on appeal that landlords can obtain court orders for peaceable forced entry where tenants defy access injunctions.
Background
Sovereign Housing Association (Sovereign) had sought access to Ms Hall's property for inspection purposes and she was obliged to provide this pursuant to the terms of her tenancy agreement.
After Ms Hall repeatedly denied entry, Sovereign obtained an injunction requiring her to allow access, which Ms Hall further ignored.
Sovereign subsequently applied to court for an order permitting forced entry under:
- CPR 25.1(c) which provides that the court may grant an order for (among other things) the preservation and inspection of relevant property; and
- CPR 25.1(d) which provides that the court may grant an order "authorising a person to enter any land or building in the possession of a party to the proceedings for the purposes of carrying out an order under sub-paragraph (c)".
The initial district judge denied Sovereign's application, suggesting that committal proceedings for contempt were more appropriate and questioning the court's jurisdiction under CPR 25.1.
Appeal
Upon appeal, the circuit judge overturned this decision and granted Sovereign access, clarifying that the court does possess the authority to grant orders for forced entry in such circumstances.
The judge relied on CPR 70.2A (which had not been pleaded in the original application) rather than CPR 25.1. This rule allows the court to authorise one party to perform an act that another party has failed to do, as required by a mandatory order, an injunction or an order for specific performance. In this instance, the tenant had been ordered to provide access but failed to comply and the court was empowered to order that Sovereign carry out the act required to be done ie accessing the property for the purposes of inspection. It did not matter that access would be gained by unconventional means.
The judge noted that the property's door belonged to Sovereign, that any damage resulting from forced entry would not therefore affect Ms Hall's property (and the court had been advised that access could be gained without causing any damage in any event). The judge did not consider that damaging the Defendant's property would be a bar to the making of an order under CPR 70.2A although it would "weigh in the balance" in deciding whether to exercise the court's discretion.
This ruling highlights the court's discretionary power to enforce compliance with injunctions and authorise landlords to gain access to properties when tenants obstruct lawful entry and confirms that proceedings for contempt of Court are not the only or even the preferred way of dealing with "disobedient" parties.
Whilst orders such as these will always be considered on a case-by-case basis, this is a useful decision for landlords, particularly where access is necessary for health and safety reasons including gas or electrical safety checks or urgent maintenance.
The decision also highlights the importance of relying on all of the relevant parts of the Civil Procedure Rules in the pleadings and of providing detailed evidence covering the tenant's non-compliance, the need for access and effect of it not being obtained together with the proposed method of access and any effect of this on the tenant or their property.
This case shows that the court is willing to exercise its discretion where a tenant is in breach of an injunction order and permit a landlord to (peaceably) force access to property which is likely to be a significantly more practical solution for landlords that contempt proceedings.