A case involving social landlord Southern Housing has led to District Judge Cridge to call for clarity on laws surrounding forced entries, after rejecting the landlords move to force entry in order to carry out safety checks.
The case arose at Bromley County Court, and although DJ Cridge conceded the resident was liable for contempt should he continue to obstruct the landlord, he also determined he courts could not authorise forced entry and nor could the Civil Procedure Rules be used to allow this.
Cases like these are common, and with the introduction of Awaab’s Law, there are several question marks around how landlords will be able to carry out checks and safety measures at the efficiency required in cases where residents are non-cooperative.
READ MORE: Play time isn’t a laughing matter – Housing Executive
Explaining his conclusion, DJ Cridge said: “The sanctity of the home is deeply embedded in our law. Forced entry may be authorised where Parliament has conferred the power, or where the common law recognises forced entry may be justified. Neither applies here. The Civil Procedure Rules cannot be used to circumvent that principle.”
“No judge has power to make an order permitting a landlord to force entry into their tenant’s home by way of enforcing an express or implied contractual right of access.
“The claimant’s current remedies remain those already available: contempt or possession proceedings.”
DJ Cridge went on to say that although these methods are slow and expensive, they are the proper route for landlords to take in such cases, and although the amount of similar cases present a considerable workload, in his view they are unable to use the forced entry “shortcut”.
“However, in my view that shortcut is not available to them. Whilst this outcome might appear harsh or impractical, it seems to me that reform of the law on this question is a matter for Parliament, not the courts.”
READ MORE: SAHP: What’s Missing? – Housing Executive
DJ Cridge continued to point out the difference in view between regional courts, and suggested this is an area that could benefit for a higher authority to make a definitive stance as to whether Civil Procedures could be used to allow landlords to force entry to the home- something Cridge himself ruled against.
The decision calls into question the protections of the home versus the everyday measures that need to be taken by landlords- often for the safety of the resident themselves. With pressure building surrounding safety measures, and the relation to resident health, clarity on the issue is vital for landlords to understand how to proceed in cases where a resident refuses to co-operate.
