Notting Hill Genesis (202411290)

Decision
Case ID	202411290
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	17 November 2025

Background

1. The resident occupied her home, a one-bedroom property with her son who was 17 at the time of her complaint. The resident wanted to transfer to a larger home and to put her son on the tenancy agreement.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request to add her son to the tenancy agreement.
   2. The resident’s request for a copy of her tenancy agreement.
   3. The resident’s request for a transfer to a larger property.
   4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found no maladministration for the following complaints:
   1. The resident’s request to add her son to the tenancy agreement.
   2. The resident’s request for a transfer to a larger property.
   3. The associated complaint.
4. We found reasonable redress for the following complaint:
   1. The resident’s request for a copy of her tenancy agreement.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s policy did not, as a rule, allow a tenant to transfer tenancies to family members other than spouses and partners. There was no evidence of a practice of recording the name of occupants on tenancy agreements.
6. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in sending a copy of the tenancy agreement to the resident and offered adequate compensation.

 

7. Although the resident had been on the transfer list of the landlord for a significant period, there was no evidence this was the fault of the landlord.
8. While there were issues with the landlord’s communication, the complaint responses in the main addressed the resident’s concerns.

Recommendation

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to: Discuss whether and how she can improve her banding. Clearly explain, in writing and in plain, non-technical language, her son’s rights of         succession, the implications of merely recording his name on her tenancy agreement         as opposed to his being made a joint tenant, and explain her right to assign the tenancy         to her son. Signpost her to local agencies for support and legal housing advice.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 April 2024	The resident made a complaint as follows: The resident received a draft tenancy agreement on 23 December 2023 transitioning from an assured shorthold tenancy to an assured lifetime tenancy. She requested information about her rights and to add her son to the tenancy. The document had “expired” in the meantime. She requested another electronic or hard copy of the agreement. She had chased the landlord several times. This had caused her a lot of stress. She wanted to know why her son could not be added to the tenancy, information about the proposed tenancy and update on her application to be rehoused in a suitable property.
30 April 2024	The landlord replied at Stage 1 of its complaint process as follows: It confirmed her son was a household member. Its policy did not allow for the children of residents to become joint tenants. It set out its joint tenant procedure which stated that it did not “usually grant joint tenancies to family members other than spouses and partners. This was to protect the interests of the family member. It should explain its succession and assignment policies”. It enclosed a copy of the tenancy agreement and apologised it had not provided this when she request it. It said that the agreement provided “clarification” on her status and invited her to ask questions. She was registered on band C on the landlord’s housing list. It noted she had been bidding. There were many households in the same position due to the current housing shortage.
24 May 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint as follows: The landlord’s website stated that priority for housing is determined by the length of time a person has been registered, with those in Band A having the highest priority and those in Band D the lowest. The landlord had sent her original tenancy agreement instead of the new proposed agreement. Her son did not have to be a joint tenant with the associated responsibilities but should be officially included on the tenancy as occupying the property. She attached a letter dated 16 November 2022 to the local authority setting out: She had asked the local authority to reassess her banding. It set out the impact on her living in a one-bedroom property with her son, then 17 years old. The property suffered from mould and damp and the windows were in poor condition.
18 June 2024	The landlord replied at Stage 2 of its complaint process as follows: As the sole household member, her son would have the opportunity to apply to succeed her tenancy if she were to pass away. Also, she could assign her tenancy to her son as a potential successor. It explained some of her rights under the proposed assured tenancy. How long she was on the list did not affect her banding and it explained how to improve her banding. It apologised for its poor communication including not sending her the hard copy of the tenancy agreement. It offered her £75 in compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy because there had been no progress with the transfer or putting her son on the tenancy. This was having a significant impact on her mental health. She told us she wanted her son on the tenancy as she was concerned about his position and housing security after she passed away. She also felt that £75 for the delay in sending her the tenancy agreement was inadequate.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to add her son to the tenancy agreement.
Finding	No maladministration

9. The resident’s initial request on 2 January 2024 was to add her son to the tenancy agreement. The landlord took this to mean that the resident wanted to add the son’s name onto the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s response “he is already on the household” was unclear. The resident then asked to add him as a joint tenant. There was no evidence the landlord responded until its Stage 1 response.
10. There was no evidence that the landlord had considered its fixed term tenancy procedure review or carried one out. The procedure provided that the landlord should arranged a review which should include a discussion about a move due to overcrowding and looking at being granted a joint tenancy. The resulting letter should explain that the existing fixed term tenancy should simply “roll over” pending the grant of an assured tenancy. The review would have provided an opportunity to the landlord to ensure there was a proper discussion about the resident’s request and to address her concerns.
11. The Stage 2 response was clearer. However, its Sole to Joint Tenancy Change procedure stated that the landlord did not “usually grant joint tenancies to family members other than spouses, civil partners or cohabiting partners.” The “usually” implied there could be exceptions. The landlord did not expand on this. There was no evidence that it had discussed with the resident its succession and assignment policies, as set out in the procedure and cited in its Stage 1 response. This was another lost opportunity to explain its policy and her son’s rights.
12. However, her escalation request, at the time, stated she did not want or need to add her son as a joint tenant but to add his name to the tenancy agreement as she did not want her son to have the responsibilities of a tenancy but only to be “formally added” to the tenancy.
13.  The Stage 2 also stated that she could assign the tenancy to her son as successor. It was not clear whether this meant she could assign the whole tenancy or as a joint tenant.  We will make a recommendation that the landlord explain to the resident her right to assign the tenancy to her son and whether she would retain her interest, about which she may need independent legal advice.
14. Neither the original tenancy agreement nor the assured tenancy agreement listed the names of the occupiers as a matter of course. It was, however, never in dispute that the resident’s son was part of the household. The landlord confirmed this on 8 January 2024. Her transfer application was accepted and continues because the household is overcrowded under the landlord’s policy. There was no evidence that it would change the resident’s son’s standing if his name was recorded on the tenancy as an occupier.
15. We consider the landlord’s communication could have been clearer, given the assurances the resident was seeking. We appreciate the distress the resident felt at her son’s name not being recorded on the tenancy agreement. We also appreciate the resident would like an assurance that her son would inherit the tenancy. Her son does not have a right to succeed to the tenancy but he would be able to apply.
16. While the landlord’s communication was poor, we do not find maladministration for the landlord’s decision not to add the resident’s son to the tenancy as either a joint tenant or a name on the tenancy. That is because the proposed transfer of the tenancy to their joint names fell outside its policy and there was no evidence of exceptional reasons for the landlord to consider departing from that policy. In any event, the resident appeared to wish to only record her son’s name on the tenancy agreement as an occupier. We will make a recommendation that the landlord discuss her options with the resident.

Complaint	The resident’s request for a copy of her tenancy agreement.
Finding	Reasonable redress

17. There was no dispute that there was a delay from 2 January 2024 to July 2024 before the landlord sent the resident a hard copy of the tenancy agreement. The copy the landlord sent with the Stage 1 response was incorrect. The resident asked for a copy again on 13 June 2024.
18. The resident set out her distress and anxiety as well as frustration given she had to chase the tenancy agreement. We recognise the impact on her. However, we consider that the landlord’s apology and its offer of £50 for the delay and £25 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience was proportionate compensation. The offer is also within our own guidelines for compensation.

Complaint	The resident’s request for a transfer to a larger property.
Finding	No maladministration

19. It was not in dispute that the resident had been on the landlord’s transfer list for over 10 years. While the landlord notified the resident at the outset of the tenancy that a transfer may take a long time, 10 years is a very long time. We noted the resident’s description of the difficulties of sharing a one-bedroom flat with her teenage son, now 18 years old. This is clearly a very difficult situation for the household. Our role is to assess what steps the landlord was taking in response.
20. There was no evidence whether she was on the correct banding within the landlord’s internal system. The evidence indicated that she was also on the local authority housing register. The landlord’s explanation that there is a significant shortage of social housing was reasonable. While her banding was not a reflection of the length of time she had been on the housing list, the landlord did not explain whether she was given any priority within her banding. It was for the resident to bid as she was doing.
21. According to the landlord, the only guidance it gave her was in the Stage 2 letter and information about exchanging properties in November 2024, prompted by our contact. It had also sent her, at her request, its booklets and policies on moving home on 21 June 2024. There was a lack of proactive offer of guidance or understanding of the resident’s difficult circumstances. However, there was no evidence of any failing by the landlord that meant that she missed out on the opportunity to move. The local authority with its access to a wider stock did not offer anything better. In the circumstances, while we recognise the resident’s difficult circumstances and impact on her, and her medical circumstances, we find no maladministration for this complaint.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

22. The landlord acknowledged and apologised that it did not escalate the resident’s complaint after her request on 24 May 2024 until 13 June 2024. However, this created an actual delay of only a few days. The landlord stated on 13 June 2024 that it would take into account that it missed her email. It did not however do so. The responses did not make clear which complaint it was upholding and which it was not. They were left for the resident to deduce. The landlord should have been clearer.
23. The letter the resident attached to her request for escalation referred to damp and mould and the condition of the windows. It was not clear whether the issues were current at the time of the complaint but we understand that they are at this time. The landlord reasonably explained it would address any new issues at Stage 1 of a fresh complaint response. There is no evidence that the landlord did so or whether it referred the resident to its repairs team. We consider that the landlord should pick up on issues in the resident’s correspondence by, for example, signposting her to the relevant team.
24. The Stage 2 response did not address the resident’s point that she wanted her son’s name on a tenancy agreement but not as joint tenant. It only addressed the issue of a joint tenancy.
25. However, the complaint handling was overall positive. The Stage 2 response was otherwise comprehensive, and it addressed the resident’s points. It explained her right to assign the tenancy to her son, though it did not explain whether that would mean given up her interest. It also set out her son’s potential rights of succession and how to improve her banding. We therefore find no maladministration in the complaint handling.

Learning

26. We identified the following learning from our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling:
    1. The landlord should consider the actual point the resident is making in their correspondence.
    2. The landlord should ensure it carries out any assurances it might make and if not explain why not.
    3. The landlord should ensure that it sends the correct documents when requested.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. We were concerned that a) there was a significant delay to the landlord sending the resident a hard copy of the tenancy agreement, b) it sent her the wrong document and c) it provided us with a notice of rent increase instead of the new tenancy agreement. This indicated a lack of organisation and understanding of its documents.

Communication

28. We have highlighted several areas where the landlord’s communication was unclear and lacked empathy. It delayed sending the resident a hard copy of her tenancy agreement. It did not adequately engage in the resident’s concerns and only belatedly addressed her options for moving.