The problem at the moment is that what you call ‘flimsy proof’ is a lot more substantial than any proof to support the opposite view. In fact, from what you have said, you have zilch. So unless you can dig something up, on the face of it I would agree with your colleague that benefit is payable.
If you are determined to be a grump, I would suggest interviewing landlord and tenant separately and asking the usual non-com questions…have you let before, would you let again, what happens if the rent’s not paid etc etc.
