Locked out – When landlords need access and the law hasn’t caught up!

Being a landlord is rarely as simple as collecting rent. Whether you manage a single apartment or a portfolio of properties, you carry real legal duties, and sometimes the people you are trying to protect – your tenant(s) – make those duties hard to meet. A recent run of court decisions in England and Wales shows just how tricky this can get, and why good advice matters most when the law itself is still being worked out.

The problem – Duties to inspect, and no access is granted

Residential landlords have genuine legal reasons to enter their tenants’ homes. They must keep the structure and key installations in repair and carry out annual statutory checks, such as gas and electrical safety. Most tenants are happy to cooperate, since a safe, well-maintained home is in their interest too. Some tenants, however, refuse access. The usual step is to ask the court for an injunction ordering the tenant to let the landlord in. But what happens if the tenant ignores the court order/injunction?

The traditional answer is to apply to commit the tenant for contempt of court, which can ultimately mean prison. That is rarely what a landlord wants, and the courts are keen to avoid it. The landlord just wants to get in, do the safety work, and comply with its own legal obligations. Landlords have therefore started asking the court for something more practical – permission to drill the lock and enter!

Question: Why landlords can’t simply let themselves in

It might seem obvious that a landlord who owns the property and has a court order can just open the door. It is not that simple. Forcing entry without the tenant or court’s permission risks criminal liability, including potential offences relating to unlawful eviction, harassment and criminal damage.

Landlords find themselves going back to court for express permission. The real question is whether judges actually have the power to grant it, and it is a hot debate!

Answer: The Courts don’t agree

Over the past two years, several County Court Judges have looked at this question and reached different conclusions:

• Some Judges say yes: In one case, a Judge included a forced-entry provision in the original injunction itself, on the basis that the door and lock belonged to the landlord and the tenant would get new keys promptly. On appeal in another case, a Judge held that the court must be able to enforce its own orders, and that a procedural rule allowing another person to carry out an act the court ordered covered this situation.
• One Judge said no: One Judge took the view that, apart from specific powers granted by Parliament, nobody can lawfully force their way into a home, and that court procedural rules cannot change that basic principle. He also held that, during a tenancy, the doors are actually in the tenant’s exclusive possession.
• More recent Judges have said yes, with conditions: Two 2026 decisions reasoned that the tenant already agreed to give access when signing the tenancy, so the court is simply enforcing that agreement. One Judge stressed that the order should spell out exactly what is allowed (forcing the lock, leaving the property secure, and giving the tenant a key) and asked the landlord to assess the tenant’s vulnerabilities first.

Even the Judges who allow forced entry disagree on the approach. Some will include it in the first injunction, whilst others say a landlord must wait until the tenant has actually disobeyed the order.

What this uncertainty means for Landlords

Many of these Judges have said that guidance from the higher courts would be welcome. Until that comes, the outcome may depend partly on which court, and which Judge, hears your case. That creates a real risk. A landlord might pursue a forced-entry order only to be told it should have applied to commit the tenant instead. Another landlord might apply to commit and be told that this is too heavy-handed and it should have sought a forced-entry order. In other words, there is no guaranteed “right” answer yet, and anyone who promises you one is overstating the position.

This issue is just one example. Across both residential and commercial property, landlords regularly face questions where the law is unsettled, the facts are messy, and the stakes are high.

How can a property litigation solicitor help

No solicitor can control how a court will rule on an open question. What a good property litigator can do is help you move forward with clarity and:

• Give you the latest picture – we track developing case law so you know where the courts currently stand and where they may be heading.
• Look closely at your facts – Your tenancy terms, the history of the dispute, and your tenant’s circumstances can all affect which route is strongest.
• Weigh the options and the risks – We help you compare approaches, such as seeking a forced-entry order or applying for committal, so you understand the likely costs, timing, and pitfalls of each.
• Help you stay on the right side of the law – Taking the wrong step, however well-intended, can expose you to criminal or civil liability.

The takeaway

Being a landlord means juggling legal duties, tenant relationships, and commercial realities, often all at once. When the law is still evolving, it is natural to want certainty that no one can honestly give.

We can help you understand the uncertainty, assess your options, and make confident, informed decisions. If you are facing an access dispute or any other complex property issue, our property litigation team is here to help.

Contact our Property Disputes solicitors today

At Ashtons Legal, we regularly advise landlords, property owners, and agents on their rights when tenants fail to vacate on time. Whether you are dealing with a residential, commercial, or mixed-use property, our Property Litigation team can help you assess your options, serve the correct notices, and pursue recovery where appropriate.

Please get in touch with our specialist Property Litigation team via our online enquiry form or by calling 0330 404 0738.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be sought on the facts of any particular case.