I wanted to update you all about the future of the blog. After discussions with Beth, the plan is that I’ll take control of the site and try and keep it going with the same detailed coverage that Giles provided. Given his super-human capacity for work, that’ll require a team of people.

So, if you’re a lawyer with an interest in housing law, and you think you’d have capacity/interest in helping with NL going forward, please can you contact me by email (jbates@ landmarkchambers. co. uk).

I’d like to have everything up and running again by October, but the precise time-table depends on when I manage to get all the relevant permissions etc from the hosting company and others.

Thank you to everyone who has been in touch to ask about the blog, and particular thanks to Tessa Shepperson for her help in understanding what had gone wrong.

JBKC

The post Technical difficulties and plans for the future appeared first on Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment.

https://www.wesleymedia.co.uk/webcast-view 

Date & Time: Friday 22/05/2026 12:00

Please ignore “Order ID” and “Password Login”

Use the PIN number below to access the service

Login PIN.  594-3531

Webcast Viewing Instructions are available here

For those who have asked about charitable donations, the family ask that donations be made to Shelter.

JBKC

The post Live stream appeared first on Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment.

https://www.crematorium.co.uk/

The wider housing law world is very welcome to join us in celebrating and mourning Giles.

JBKC

The post Funeral arrangements appeared first on Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment.

Justin Bates KC

Anthony Gold Partner Giles Peaker sadly passes away

We are deeply sorry to announce that one of our Partners, Giles Peaker, passed away over the weekend of 18-19 April 2026. Our deepest condolences go to his family and friends at this most difficult of times.

Giles was a leading lawyer, renowned for his expertise in all aspects of housing law. He advised and represented leaseholders and tenants on build defects, fire safety issues, repossession, poor housing conditions and homelessness, dedicating his career to helping those most in need.

As well as his client work, Giles worked tirelessly to improve the rights of individuals to good housing. He played a major part in drafting the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, which provided a significant step forward in ensuring tenants have a right to healthy and safe housing.

Giles was also a regular commentator on housing law in the media and the founder and editor of ‘Nearly Legal’ – a specialist and much-loved housing law used by lawyers, judges, academics and members of the public alike.

Legal 500 described Giles as “an outstanding lawyer – dazzlingly clever, persistent, highly effective and cares deeply about his area of law”. Chambers and Partners said he was “fantastic” and “hugely knowledgeable and enthusiastic”.  But more important to Giles were the many glowing testimonials he received from his clients.

Giles’ colleagues knew him for his dry wit, immense knowledge and kindness, and as someone who was always willing to give his time to colleagues and to anyone who approached him with a problem.

He died following a short illness and is survived by his wife, Beth.

Andrew Brookes, the head of Anthony Gold’s housing department, said:

“Giles was an inspirational colleague who I worked with for 20 years.   His knowledge was legendary and his passion for housing law unmatched.  His Nearly Legal blog was both widely used and loved for its clarity, wit and breadth.  He was instrumental in drafting the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation Act).  He will be sorely missed by all of us at Anthony Gold and in the wider housing law world.”

The post Giles Peaker appeared first on Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment.

Normal service, hopefully, will be resumed before very long.

NL

The post On pause for a bit. appeared first on Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment.

This was a count court hearing, before DJ Le Bas, in which the issue of injunctions to permit the landlord to force access to the tenant’s property was again addressed. It follows on from the judgment of DJ Cridge in Southern Housing v James Emmanuel (2025) EWCC 58 (our note here) that held the Court had no jurisdiction to make such an order.  In this case DJ Le Bas held that there was jurisdiction and made such an order. (As usual, it appears that the tenants was not represented and did not appear.)

The landlord argued as follows:

i) The tenant’s obligation under the tenancy agreement was contractually binding consent to the landlord having access in certain circumstances. If the landlord enters in those circumstances, the landlord is not a trespasser. An injunction for forced access, or amend under CPR70.2A to include it, was just giving effect to that binding consent.

ii) A court’s order that the tenant permit access is not an order for the tenant to give permission, but an order for the tenant  to facilitate access (by opening the door).

iii) Where the court has made an order that the tenant facilitate access and they do not, they are a disobedient party within the meaning of CPR 70.2A(1) . The discretion under CPR 70.2A(2) to direct that “the act required to be done may, so far as practicable, be done by another person” is therefore available.

iv) The act here is to facilitate access – by opening or unlocking the door. ‘So far as practicable’ extended to permission antoehr person to open the door, by forcing the lack.

This does not amount to asking the Court to use the CPR to overturn existing law.

The court agreed with this and made the order.

Comment

First thing – obviously this issue needs to go to a higher court. Practically, this would probably have to mean a landlord appealing a refusal, and someone applying to intervene (given the unlikelihood of the tenant being represented).  We have widely differing views in the County Court on what is, by any measure, a serious issue. This needs to be dealt with.

Secondly, I have doubts about the reasoning in this case. I am not convinced that (pace Southern v Emmanuel) the act required by the original injunction – to let the landlord in – is the same act as forced entry without permission. Forced entry includes damage to the property which is of course not part of a tenant’s access obligations.

One act is the tenant’s contractual obligation, the other act, forced entry, it seems clear to me, isn’t. If it is not, then CPR 70.2A(2) is not available. (Can anyone come up with other breach of contract situations that would allow force in seeking compliance, because I’m struggling.)

There also appears to be no engagement with the common law position in this argument, or judgment. If CPR 70.2A(2) is not available, the whole thing falls apart.

The post The King crossed the threshold – forced entry injunctions appeared first on Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment.