Think tank

Forced access should not be attempted, even if the tenancy appears to allow it, because the right to enter is enforceable by court proceedings. You may wish to consider the use of possession proceedings rather than injunctions, as the possession route is cheaper and can be more effective.

Different considerations apply where the occupant has become a tolerated trespasser: the appropriate method is to issue a warrant for possession (having given notice and a further chance to provide access) or, if a possession order has been made but not breached, to apply to vary the order.

It is important that some action is taken.

In particular, landlords cannot rely on non-access as a defence to prosecution for breach of the regulations. It is therefore important that a landlord has appropriate procedures in place and that these are both implemented and monitored. But forced access should not be part of that policy.

Rosemary Hart, Partner and housing specialist, Trowers & Hamlins

Morally, landlords must be able to enter property for the tenant's health and safety, so I do not understand the HSE's guidance. For example, gas safety checks must be undertaken yearly, so for councils and RSLs to comply, sometimes they must enter houses when tenants do not respond to requests.

My son works for a company contracted to do gas safety checks for a council. On one job, the tenant was an elderly man who could not cope for himself. The house was so filthy, the contractor refused to do the work and insisted the council clean up before they went back in. This is an example of a tenant who is possibly unable to respond to entry requests, but access would be needed to help him. Sometimes common sense should rule – not law and regulatory guidance.

Jane Loftus, Information team leader for TPAS and chair of Family Housing Association

A uniform response
We want our frontline reception and customer service staff to wear a uniform with our corporate logo and colours.

Some of them aren't too happy about this. Do they have the right to refuse?

An employer has the discretion to impose a dress code such as a uniform, but only so far as is reasonable – in other words, a balance has to be struck between the interests of the employer and the freedom of the employee. You will need to be sure that the uniform does not have any implications in relation to religious expression or cultural identity.

Employment tribunals usually accept that in the service or retail industries, a uniform is reasonable in order that the employee can be readily identified by customers.

Assuming that the staff are already in post, it is unlikely that there will be any reference in their contracts of employment to uniforms. If the uniform is to be a job requirement, it could be argued that it forms part of the contracts and should be agreed with them.

In the case of new staff, a clause relating to the issue should be included in their contracts. It should also be made clear at interview that the uniform is mandatory.

When deciding on the uniform, it would be wise to involve the staff affected, even to the point of asking them to come up with ideas for a uniform with which they would all be happy, after setting out the broad criteria, such as the range of acceptable colours, logo, cost and the like.

You will also need to consider the number of articles of clothing you would supply to each member of staff to ensure they are able to maintain their own standards of personal hygiene and to agree in advance who is responsible for cleaning them. For instance, you may consider giving each member of staff a small allowance for laundering.

Do check the contract of employment. It is likely that it will allow for changes following consultation and notice, so in the event that a member of staff refuses to adopt the uniform, you will be able to make them comply. Hopefully, handled the right way, this will not be necessary.

Sandy Staff, Human resources management consultant at the Conway Staff Partnership