[quote:6ff1082412] I do not see why we cannot continue to refuse HB in cases where LL has not got title to the property. [/quote:6ff1082412]
Your answer to that question is in para 16
[quote:6ff1082412]“Where the landlord’s title is defective but the parties are bound by the estoppel … there is said to be a tenancy by estoppel… Even though it is apparent to the parties that the landlord’s title is defective … both they and their successors in title will be estopped from denying that the grant was effective to create the tenancy that it purported to create. Thus, in effect, there is brought into being a tenancy under which the parties and their successors in title have (as against one another) most of the rights and liabilities of a legal estate. The tenancy by estoppel will devolve and may be alienated in the same way as any other tenancy, and the landlord may distrain for rent in the ordinary way…”[/quote:6ff1082412]
You are trying to establish if the claimant is liable to pay rent. If a tenancy by estoppel has arisen then she does have a liability to pay.
Later on she does mention that you would still have to look at Reg 9 about commerciality and all the other variations on “contrivance” so not all is lost.
.
