The entitlement, Catso, does not arise through length of occupation. It is simply that the ex and cruz are 50/50 joint owners of a property. This gives the ex the right to occupy half the property, but she did not. cruz then spread out and occupied the whole property, at which point he became liable to pay the ex rent for her half. He did not, but paid the mortgage and maintainance. If it stopped here then in court it would be taken that one equalled the other so all square - crude, I know, but the court will not indulge petty bean counting. However, and this is very important, cruz additionally moves in a woman, and at this point the ex is very much entitled to be paid cash rent. Worse, he adds a child but still pays no rent. A claim for damages therefore arises which the ex will easily win and at a rough guess I would say with compound interest will be around �20000. It is not the ex who is throwing cruz and his tenants out, it is cruz who cannot afford to live there - he simply does not have the necessary money and is a fool living well over his head. The situation cruz is in is very akin to Cathy Come Home - he is already one third of the way down the slippery slope but like Cathy does not realise it or understand that he cannot get back. He is living in a dream world and is already a no-hoper who, like Cathy, will soon be homeless and without money. There are many thousands of cruz's living and sleeping rough on the streets of UK city's.