From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sovereign Network Group (202331273)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331273

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

28 July 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to amend his tenancy.

Background

  1. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident is an assured tenant and he has lived there since 1984. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 20 October 2022 the resident made an enquiry to the landlord about the names on his tenancy. He said the person who was listed as joint tenant with him did not exist and he wanted the name removed. The landlord explained the process involved in doing this.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord about the same issue on 19 April 2023. He said he was getting correspondence in both his and the other tenant’s name and he wanted it to be amended. The landlord explained that supporting paperwork had to be provided to amend the tenancy agreement.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 22 May 2023. He said the landlord was still sending correspondence in both names despite him advising the other tenant did not exist. He wanted the name removed. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 3 July 2023 it said it had been provided with the names of people in the household and the resident then signed the tenancy agreement. It said it would be unlawful to remove a name from the tenancy agreement without the person’s consent or a court order. It advised the resident to seek legal advice.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 17 October 2023 and the landlord responded on 13 November 2023, reiterating its stage 1 response.
  6. The resident referred the complaint to us as he wants the other name removed from the tenancy. He says he cannot obtain consent or a court order as the person does not exist.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement, signed by the resident, lists the tenants as “Mr and Mrs (resident’s surname)”. It was reasonable for the tenancy to therefore be joint and in both names. There is no evidence the resident attempted to correct it before 2022.
  2. When the resident first queried the matter in October 2022, the landlord spoke to him and made enquiries. Landlord records show the resident said his wife had died. The landlord informed him a death certificate was required to transfer from joint to sole tenancy. This was a reasonable response. There is no evidence the death certificate was then provided by the resident.
  3. On 19 April 2023 the resident told the landlord it was a misunderstanding that led to the tenancy being put into joint names 40 years ago. He said the landlord visited the property and a visitor answered the door. The resident believed the landlord wrongly assumed the visitor was his spouse and the tenancy was incorrectly put into joint names. The landlord responded to say it was not possible to amend the tenancy agreement without a death or divorce certificate or other supporting evidence. The landlord’s advice remained the same and it was appropriate. The case was still that the resident had signed a joint tenancy agreement.
  4. The landlord’s response to the stage 1 complaint was correct and appropriate. It explained its position and gave the resident options for resolution. It said he could ask the other tenant to complete a Deed of Assignment. Both parties would then need to attend the office to complete paperwork. Alternatively the resident could obtain a court order and provide it to the landlord. The landlord made the situation clear and was bound by legal requirements. While it may have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable.
  5. The landlord advised the resident to contact a solicitor or the local citizens advice bureau to guide him through the process. This was appropriate to ensure he could access independent advice.
  6. The stage 2 response was thorough and addressed all of the resident’s points. The resident said he was not aware at the time of signing that the tenancy agreement was a joint one. The landlord correctly explained it could only rely on the document that was signed in 1983, where 2 names were listed as joint tenants. It said it cannot simply change it now without the resident going through the correct legal channels. This was correct and reasonable.
  7. The resident said the name of the other person on the tenancy does not exist so he cannot obtain a Deed of Assignment or court order. He stated he has never been married to the name listed as joint tenant on the agreement. The joint tenant has the same surname and the resident has been married in the past. However the resident said the person named was not, and never has been, his wife. The landlord said the resident would need to seek legal advice in these circumstances. This was a fair and appropriate response to quite a confusing and understandably frustrating situation.
  8. The landlord has been clear and responsive to the resident regarding this issue. It has maintained its position that it cannot remove a joint tenant’s name as per the resident’s request without the necessary legal documentation. The landlord’s response was reasonable. There was no maladministration in how it handled the resident’s request to amend his tenancy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to amend his tenancy.