I'm pondering what to do in this case where the client is claiming succession to his former partner's tenancy, landlord is refusing to accept succession, client has applied for HB and it has been refused on basis that the landlord is refusing to accept payments of any type from the client. Apart from anything else, going back to the basics, I can't see that I can argue that he has an enforceable agreement since there is no consideration, no offer and acceptance and certainly no intention on the landlord's part to create legal relations. These things are only going to coalesce when a court makes a decision on the succession issue. Its all a bit Shrodingers Cat.

Any ideas?

In the absence of any other bright ideas I shall ask for a statement of reasons for the moment and, if client wins succession case, request backdating and ask HB authority to re-open a previous backdating refusal which would take him back to beginning of the tenancy.......

s.130 SSCBA only allows HB where there is a liability.

If the landlord is saying "there is no liability"; I'm struggling to see what other decision the LA can reach. And, on the basis of the stated proviso (i.e. no liability), I'm struggling to see how the LA would subsequently be able to revise an earlier decision; the decision would not be in error, nor would it be made in ignorance of a material fact.

So, no bright ideas here.

NB: For completeness, HBR 8 won't help. It relies on there being a liability in the first place.

If the landlord will not accept any rent (he may well have been advised not to do so as it would prejudice his rebuttal of the succession claim, assuming he has taken any advice and is not off on a frolic of his own), then what would the point be of getting HB? It is not there to enrich the tenant.
What reasons has the landlord given for not accepting the succession? I didn't think this was an optional decision! What sort of tenancy did the client's partner have, and was it in itself already by succession?

Was it a private tenancy, or social Landlord? Was it a joint tenancy, was he down as a permitted occupier, have a licence to occupy or was it all in his partners name. If this is the case and it was a private landlord he would have no right to succeed the tenancy.

Private landlord or housing association, it makes no difference. A partner can succeed to an assured periodic tenancy created under The Housing Act 1998, under section 17 of that act but only on the death of the tenant and only if the tenant himself was not a successor to a previous tenant.

There might be assignment rights where a couple divorce or separate but in the private sector these are usually very limited

That should be the 1988 Act.

My apologies if that is wrong, can it be established when the original tenancy started?