By Rob Gershon, HQN Residents’ Network associate

The issue of ‘no access’ in social housing has been on a bit of a strange trajectory. It’s often cited as a reason for information not being gathered, works not being done, or sometimes used to place the responsibility for the resolution of a situation onto tenants.

There are a range of technical and legal procedures landlords can use to gain access, but I can’t help but feel that there’s sometimes too much of a rush to an injunction. HQN associate Bobbie Hough ran a Housing Management Network session on no access back in April of 2025, and although the full details are for membership access only, I hope he won’t mind me paraphrasing the main issues identified as a starting point:

• No access cases are more frequent
• Internal processes can inadvertently prompt ‘no access’ responses from landlords, even when there hasn’t necessarily been a refusal to grant access from tenants
• Communications need improvement and personalisation
• As with so many issues, often cases could be resolved more smoothly with better integrated inter-departmental work
• Automated systems, which lack the human touch, sometimes trigger unhelpful interactions.

I’m not going to reproduce the entire outcome of the group here, but these selected items paint a picture where no access isn’t really an issue to do with tenants not letting people into their homes at all.

In a recent HQN interview, Housing Ombudsman Richard Blakeway made specific reference to no access issues while considering the implications of Awaab’s Law. Commenting earlier in the interview that tenants seeking legal redress for their disrepair issues is usually “quite far down the road”, the ombudsman makes a similar point about no access. “Typically, it doesn’t start with no access”, Blakeway says, “no access is when there’s been a breakdown in the relationship and a breakdown in trust.”

Going down the technical, legal routes available to them can often just exacerbate this breakdown for landlords. In a case from earlier this year, Southern Housing had already achieved an injunction allowing them access for gas safety inspections, and on the face of it we all like to think that tenants would let people in to ensure that they are safe, let alone to allow landlords to perform tasks that they are legally bound to do themselves, and that invariably tenants have agreed to when signing their tenancy agreement.

The case was interesting because it represents the ultimate breakdown in communications in some ways. Southern Housing have returned to court to get a judge to agree that they can force entry into a property. It shows just how much time, effort and money landlords might be prepared to spend on court action, none of which has resolved either their ability to gain access or the breakdown of the relationship and communications with the tenant.

The case is additionally interesting for its introduction by District Judge Cridge. Ahead of the technical details of the case, he set out in plain language that the tenant really should let the landlord in to do crucial safety work. If the tenant doesn’t, they might face contempt of court proceedings, which could lead to prison, or eviction. Neither of which are ideal, but the point of Judge Cridge’s commentary is that it should not be within the power of judges to decide whether forced entry should be allowed.

Nothing could feel further from what’s essentially a neighbourhood housing management issue than a judge offering gentle criticism of another judge for approving forced entry in a previous case. As interesting as it is, it resonates with the high-handed approach that landlords may feel forced into taking. It also highlights that they might be triggering these legal routes unnecessarily or too soon. Which is ironic considering how often landlords are sensitive about tenants seeking legal redress through disrepair claims when there’s been a similar breakdown in communication.

Somewhere between court action, the Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard, and the Competence and Conduct guidance, there has to be a better way. Despite changes to the remits of the ombudsman and the regulator, it feels like providers are simply missing a trick to stop, take a breath and examine what’s actually happening before cases even become no access.

Bobbie Hough’s briefing notes that one of the suggested actions for landlords is “giving tenants more than 30 seconds to answer to door”. This sounds like a simple change, but in the current climate of combative relationships around complaints, with this year’s tenant satisfaction measures suggesting landlords still have some way to go to get better at these basic interactions, perhaps simple changes are the best place to start.

Clearly there are going to be some cases where the problem has become so great that no reparation of trust or re-opening of communications is possible, but from the work done inside landlords and the insight provided by the ombudsman from the centre of the data about disputes and their resolution, the best starting point might be a rethink of how landlords talk to tenants, and a specific re-examination of no access cases – ideally with a fresh pair of eyes.

Whether this is a different staff team or through alternative dispute resolution, there’s got to be a better way of sharing the responsibility of these cases and trying to redress what’s gone wrong inside the power balance and communications failures.