County court judge approves enforcement of injunction on tenant but calls for greater clarity from higher courts

However, District Judge James said at Plymouth County Court that this was not the same as making or amending an injunction but arose only after the defendant’s non-compliance with the original injunction order.

Plymouth Community Homes (PCH) applied to enforce an injunction against a tenant so that it could complete an overdue electrical inspection, check smoke alarms and perform the annual legionella cylinder service.

Despite an injunction having been granted the tenant had twice refused the landlord access.

Judge James said he had to decide whether the court had the power to make the order sought by PCH under the CPR.

He said there were conflicting decisions at county court level, no higher court decision and disagreement among legal practitioners.

On first consideration it might seem obvious that PCH should be granted an order as it is a social landlord seeking access for essential safety inspections.

But he said a landlord entering premises to carry out repairs without permission commits a trespass “no matter how absurd the objection of the tenant”.

A tenant might be denying access because of a vulnerability or mental health condition such as a hoarding disorder.

Judge James said that under the tenancy agreement the tenant had exclusive possession of the property and the right to quiet enjoyment.

But these rights were subject to any terms in the tenancy agreement he entered into and the judge said “the right to quiet enjoyment is subject to the right of access, and even if this were not the case the right to quiet enjoyment is for the property as demised, which demise includes the landlord's right to access.

“On a correct construction, the claimant is therefore entitled to access for the purposes provided for in the express and implied terms notwithstanding that this, on an absolutist interpretation, involves some interference with the defendant's right to quiet enjoyment.”

Judge James said if PCH were to force or change the locks so long as the property is left secure, and keys provided without delay, “I do not consider that this would be unreasonable either”.

He said he was not being asked to order Mr Hammond to do something but instead authorise PCH to force entry, which was “not the purpose of an injunction”.

This meant PCH was dependent on rule 70.2A of the CPR and he made the order in its favour subject to various conditions.

Judge James concluded the issue of access injunctions and the application of rule 70.2A were not straightforward and guidance from a higher court would be welcome.

Mark Smulian