Council Eviction – What Tenancy do I have?

Ben - Burton and Taylor. Well if I'm the pretty one that makes you the alcoholic!!

Mary - my interest was in the original tenancy and whether it actually ever existed. That was what I was quoting - Ben is of course quite right and the inferred tenancy, by habit and accepting payments, would give Colin's friend hope.

I dont know what you look like I/O but I'm certainly holding up my part of the partnership haha

I meant to add to my earlier remarks that in the Case of Ayinde the tenants surrendered their accommodation whereas in Basson they terminated. Which does make a legal difference begging a further question from Colin (Althoguh I'm sure he wished he hadnt started) did your friend's ex terminate or surrender?

The former would be by formal deed but the latter could have merely come about by her handing the keys back or just walking out

It must be the latter then, she would've left the keys with my friend, not returned them to the council.
...But was her tenancy ever terminated or surrendered, since the rent statements still have her name on them ?

I was wondering if I hadn't started, ...then .....!
No, it's been very interesting that to a simple layperson it seemed an open or shut case, however, it is all, but.

There are three ways that a tenant can end their occupancy
-Implied surrender...this comes about through things like abandonment. Its a thorny legal problem in itself because it can be difficult to determine whether or not a person has actually abandoned a property and as you would expect, has some pretty specific delineators.
-Surrender by operation of law, usually a tenant saying "Here's the keys" and a landlord saying "Ta very much". Put legally there must be what is called an 'Unequivocal act of surrender AND just as importantly, an 'Unequivocal act of acceptance of surrender'. If a tenant chucks the keys back through the landlord's door but the landlord doesnt do anything to accept them, then it wont be a surrender.
-Termination....where the tenant hands in a formal deed ending the tenancy....quite rare in my experience.

Now here's the rub. If surrender by operation of law takes place and there is another person in the property but the landlord didnt know about them it can be possible, particularly with the Ayinde case, to argue that the person remaining becomes the new tenant, if the landlords refer to them as such and accept rent instead of use and occupation charges.....a point I have been banging on about for some time in this thread.

If, as in the Basson case, the original tenants terminated, then any other occupiers wouldnt transfer over-because they didnt have contractual rights in the first place. If the actual tenants dont leave on the stated date then under the truly mad Distress for Rent Act 1737, the landlord can charge the tenant double; the rent for each day they stay there after the termination date, without having to accept the 'Left behind occupier' as the lawful tenant, although they would still have to get a possession order before evicting.

Now I know that this all seems a bit arcane but in actual fact, it is the world that landlords inhabit but most of the time they dont realise it.

If you tell a tenant to go and they go, thats the end of it. I recently spoke to a lovely landlord who told me he had rented properties for 20 years and never had a problem. This legal stuff, that is my world, doenst become an issue until the Merde hits the fan, then I start talking about these issues and often get either accused of living in cloud cuckoo land or being obstructive.

All P118 reader live in legal land but you so rarely realise it until things go Pete Tong.

I'm well aware that my comments here sound a bit mad, even to me, but unfortunately this is landlord land

Thank you to everyone who has made positive comments and suggestions here,
they are very much appreciated.

In due course my friend will be seeing his housing officer, so I will let you know the outcome when I know.