A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202332324)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property since 2017. In 2023, he requested that the landlord amend his tenancy agreement or issue him with a new one to reflect his name change by deed poll. The landlord refused his request.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to amend the tenancy agreement.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to amend the tenancy agreement.
5. We have found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

6. There was no requirement in policy or legislation for the landlord to provide an amended tenancy agreement. The landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s request. It explained its position clearly, accepted his name change, and updated the resident’s details on its system.
7. The landlord took too long by 4 working days to issue its stage 1 response. It recognised this failing and apologised to the resident. The landlord’s apology was fair and we assess it was sufficient put things right for its failing.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times between 22 and 27 November 2023 to request it change the name on his tenancy agreement. The landlord took 7 working days longer than agreed to tell him it would not alter the document. Though it delayed in providing a response, this delay was unlikely to have adversely affected the service provided or caused a detriment to the resident.
9. The resident said that the landlord was in breach of the Enrolment of Deeds (Change of Name) Regulations 1994. However, these regulations only govern the procedure for enrolling a deed poll in the Supreme Court’s Central Office, they do not impose any secondary obligations on third parties like landlords. The landlord was therefore entitled to update its records without altering the original agreement.
10. In its complaint responses, the landlord reassured the resident that it accepted his name change and updated its systems accordingly. It confirmed that its position was not to amend tenancy agreements to reflect name changes. The landlord’s tenancy policy is silent on the matter, however, in the absence of a legal or procedural obligation, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to alter the agreement. It was appropriate for the landlord to communicate its position clearly and consistently.
11. In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s request. It was clear in its communication, it used his new name in all correspondence, and despite a small delay in confirming its position, the overall impact on the resident was limited. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to change the name on the tenancy agreement.

12. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy is compliant with the Code.
13. The evidence shows its stage 1 response was issued 4 working days later than the timescales set out in its policy. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and apologised for the delay.
14. In his escalation request, the resident stated that the landlord had failed in service because it issued a “final response” on 12 December 2023 before providing its stage 1 response. The evidence shows the confusion arose because the resident repeatedly asked the landlord for its final position on the issue. In December 2023, the landlord emailed that it would not change the agreement, and it reflected the resident’s wording when it described this as its “final response.” This was a reasonable attempt to provide clarity to the resident. It is reasonable to conclude that the complaint remained ongoing despite this interaction.
15. The email of 12 December 2023 was separate from the formal complaints procedure. The use of “final” was misguided and may have caused confusion, but the landlord explained in its stage 2 response that this could not have been a final response because the complaint had not progressed through the procedure. The landlord acted appropriately when it clarified the process and signposted the resident to our services.
16. Our guidance on remedies suggests that an apology may remedy a failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. When considering the length of the delay, we consider that the landlord’s apology resolved the complaint. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord kept appropriate records about its contact with the resident and the decisions it made in this case. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

18. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s communication.