Further guidance on Forced Access Injunctions

Another County Court decision addressing the issue of forced access has now been handed down, providing further guidance for practitioners in this developing area of housing law.

As matters currently stand, the law on forced access remains unsettled at County Court level. A recap of previous County Court decisions on this issue can be found here and here.

The latest judgment, Bromford Housing Association Ltd v Robinson, was handed down by Recorder Jack on 14 October 2026 in the Birmingham County Court. Significantly, the court granted a ‘rolled up’ order for access, including permission for forced access, at the first hearing. The housing litigation team at Anthony Collins represented the claimant landlord, Bromford Housing Association.

Background

The landlord sought access to the tenant’s property in order to carry out a five-year electrical safety inspection. Despite numerous attempts to arrange access between June and October 2026, the tenant consistently refused entry.

The landlord engaged extensively with the tenant through letters, telephone calls, emails and text messages. It also sought to address the tenant's concerns by offering practical assistance, including help with moving personal belongings that may have obstructed the inspection. These offers were declined.

In light of the tenant's continued refusal to provide access, the landlord issued proceedings seeking an injunction requiring access to the property, together with an order permitting forced access should the tenant fail to comply. 

The decision

In his judgment, Recorder Jack emphasised the importance of electrical safety inspections and the obligation on landlords to ensure the safety of both their tenants and housing stock.

The court noted the landlord's sustained efforts to gain access over several months and concluded that there was no realistic prospect of the tenant voluntarily allowing entry for the inspection. Against that background, Recorder Jack determined that it was appropriate to grant a rolled-up injunction, including the provision for forced access.

The court considered that requiring the landlord to first obtain an access injunction and then return to court for a further order permitting forced access would result in unnecessary delay and additional legal costs. Given the history of the matter, the court was satisfied that the tenant was likely to disregard an access-only injunction, making further proceedings inevitable.

A departure from previous County Court decisions?

Historically, rolled-up forced access orders have generally been granted only after a landlord has attempted to enforce an existing access injunction.

In Stonewater Ltd v Harris [2026] EWCC 42, His Honour Judge Glen observed that although a rolled-up order was technically available at a first hearing, it would not ordinarily be appropriate to grant one.

Recorder Jack respectfully departed from that approach in Bromford v Robinson. He considered that it was not in anyone’s interest for the matter to return to court where the evidence clearly demonstrated that, without permission for forced access, the landlord would remain unable to carry out essential safety inspections.

The decision therefore provides support for the proposition that, in appropriate cases, rolled-up orders may be justified at a first hearing where there is compelling evidence that the tenant has been persistently non-compliant.

Practical considerations

This case highlights the importance of landlords meeting their housing management and safety obligations, while also providing helpful guidance for those seeking forced access orders. Key points include:

• Maintain detailed records of all attempts to obtain access. In this case, the claimant was able to produce evidence of the majority of its communications with the tenant, which proved persuasive to the court.
• Consider the impact of forced access on vulnerable tenants. Landlords should ensure that vulnerability issues have been identified and appropriately addressed before seeking such relief. The Judge in this case noted the detailed proportionality and Equality Act assessment carried out by the claimant. 
• Offer reasonable support to facilitate access. The claimant's willingness to assist the tenant in moving personal belongings was an important factor.
• Consider whether a rolled-up order may be appropriate in a first application for an access injunction where there is a clear history of non-compliance. Any application should be supported by evidence explaining why requiring a further hearing would be disproportionate and serve little practical purpose for the parties.

Summary

Bromford v Robinson will be welcomed by social landlords seeking access to properties for essential electrical safety inspections where tenants continue to refuse entry. However, the decision remains a County Court judgment and is therefore not binding. 

As a result, the availability of rolled-up orders permitting forced access remains a developing area of law and one that ultimately continues to depend on the discretion of the individual judge hearing the application. Until authoritative guidance is provided by the High Court, differing approaches between County Courts are likely to continue.

The judgment reinforces the importance of thorough evidence gathering, careful consideration of proportionality, and meaningful engagement with tenants before proceedings are issued. It also demonstrates that some Courts are prepared to grant rolled-up orders where circumstances allow.

As the body of case law continues to grow, we have prepared an updated table summarising the current position in each reported forced access case for ease of reference.

If you require any further information or assistance in relation to the issue of access, please contact us.