Interesting points.

So in the case posited by Benedict White, it is not enough to say that B did not intend to enrich D, nor is quite enough to say that D's enrichment is justified by the Act. We have to figure out (almost certainly as a matter of inference) whether the statutory disposition which gives the result that D is enriched was intended also to proof that enrichment against the kind of claim B wants to make.

It is difficult to see into the mind of politicians, but as there are two main acts, let's look at them.

On the one hand there is the 1985 act. This seems clearly there to give rights to council house tenants particularly the right to buy. It also has provision for the transfer of properties to housing associations if the tenants so desire.

The 1988 act brings along a new form of tenancy (assured) which provides more housing association friendly terms, particularly as far as succession rights are concerned (Which is what B is fighting for). It also says that a transferred tenancy cannot be a secure tenancy. So upon transfer the legislator clearly intended to strip B of some of his rights.

However, in order to make the transfer happen, there had to be a consultation process, in which promises were made, including a promise to treat the succession rights as per the 1985 act. There also had to be approval of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and follows things like tenants guarantees which all also pointed to preserving succession rights similar to the 1985 act, rather than the more restrictive 1988 act (Spouse only succession rights). So a vote of the tenants was made on the basis of the promises made in the consultation document. Those include B's right of succession.

So the position of the legislature is not clear.

What does seem clear to me is that if the consultation document is seen to be not worth the paper it is written on then it is going to become increasingly difficult to get these transfers to happen, which would be against the public interest.

Also there is an implied promise which has been broken. It cannot have been the intent of parliament that this happen.

Kind regards

Benedict White