Sovereign Housing Association Limited (Sovereign) obtained an injunction for access to their tenant (Ms Hall)'s property, meaning she was required to provide access. However, she did not comply with this. 

Sovereign then applied for an order which could allow them to peacefully force access to the property, under a combination of Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 25.1(c) and (d)). This was rejected by the District Judge, who held that the court lacked jurisdiction under these civil procedure rules and that the correct approach was to pursue committal proceedings for non-compliance.

Sovereign appealed this decision on the basis that the court did indeed have the jurisdiction to grant an order for forced access, under their general case management powers and enforcement of compliance with orders (CPR 3.1(2)(m) and CPR 70.2A).

On appeal, the Circuit Judge noted that CPR 25.1(c) and (d) could potentially allow for an order authorising forced access. Reference was made to the white book which states the following: 

‘Where the court grants an interim remedy in the form of any order suggested at 25.1(1)(c), the court (this would normally be at the same judicial level as that granting the primary interim remedy) may grant a further interim remedy in the form of 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 the first order (r.25.1(1)(d)." and  then goes on to say “An order granting a remedy of this type may be made only by a judge (Practice Direction “Allocation of Cases to Levels of Judiciary”, paragraph 2.1, see Paragraph 2BPD.1 above.’

Interestingly, the Circuit Judge was persuaded that an order for forced access could be made under CPR 70.2A.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that when applying for an order allowing for forced access, landlords did not have jurisdiction under civil procedure rule 25.1 and instead may rely on CPR 70.2A. This is a County Court judgment and is therefore seen as persuasive (not binding). 

Key takeaways for landlords seeking access injunctions

While CPR 25.1(1)(c) and (d) could potentially allow forced entry, their use requires further clarity and argument, particularly regarding ambiguous practice directions.

A more robust legal basis exists under CPR 70.2A, which empowers the court to enforce compliance with mandatory orders or contractual obligations, even if this requires forced entry.

The ruling reinforces that landlords can avoid contempt proceedings and instead directly seek orders for access under CPR 70.2A.

For more information

For more information on Civil Procedure Rules, please contact me.