Abri Group Limited (202506575)

Background

1. The resident complained that the landlord failed to sign her up as a joint tenant of the property she moved into with her ex-partner in October 2024. She complained that this meant she was unable to contest the tenancy when her ex-partner evicted her in December 2024. The landlord apologised for this error and offered her compensation, and a prioritised management move to put this right. The resident was unhappy with the sum of compensation offered and would like the landlord to reinstate her as sole tenant of the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s tenancy application.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in how the landlord handled the resident’s tenancy application.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to enter the resident and her partner onto its system as joint tenants as per the local authority referral. This meant it then addressed all the sign-up forms to her ex-partner, who went on to sign up as sole tenant. This in turn meant the resident was unable to contest the tenancy when the relationship broke down. However, the landlord acknowledged its failing and the likely impact and offered an appropriate sum of compensation to put this right. It also went above and beyond the requirements of its own policy by placing the resident on its priority management move list.
6. The landlord’s complaint handling policy does not set out any timescales for acknowledging complaints and is therefore not in line with our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord failed to formally acknowledge and define the resident’s stage 1 complaint as per the Code. It then issued its stage 2 response as per its policy and the Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

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

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.

7. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy explains that “when making an offer of a new home, [it will send the] initial intention to offer letter and pre tenancy assessment form detailing the property being offered, rent charges and tenancy type to the customer via the onboarding portal.”
8. We can see the landlord failed to correctly record that the resident and her ex-partner were applying as joint tenants having been referred as such by the LA in February 2024. As a result, it then addressed all the tenancy sign-up forms to her ex-partner only. He then went on to sign up as a sole tenant, and this meant the resident was unable to contest the tenancy when he evicted her from the property in December 2024.
9. This was not in line with its policy, since it should have entered the information correctly and sent all the sign-up forms to the resident also. The landlord has fully acknowledged this failure. The resident remains unhappy with the level of compensation offered as she does not consider that it is proportionate to the impact it caused her. She explained that she was forced to sleep in her car and on friend’s sofas for a number of weeks until she moved into a property managed by a different housing association in late January 2025.
10. We recognise the resident was deprived of the opportunity to contest the tenancy following the relationship breakdown in December 2024 due to the landlord’s mistake. We also recognise that this likely caused her significant distress, and that she wants further compensation to put this right.
11. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £1000 and above are appropriate to put right failings which have caused significant and long-term impacts on residents. These sums are at the top end of our compensation scale. The landlord has already fully acknowledged the impact of its failing and offered £1,700 compensation. Therefore, it has already offered compensation in excess of the top-end of our scale. For this reason, we consider it has offered a suitable sum of compensation to put right the impacts caused by its failing.
12. We can also see that, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord put her on its internal management move list to prioritise her for its next available property which meets her location preferences and medical needs. The landlord’s management transfer policy sets out that it typically only offers these types of transfers in exceptional circumstances when existing tenants are deemed to be at risk. Therefore, it acted sympathetically here by going beyond its management transfer obligations in recognition of its error.
13. We consider that this action, combined with the substantial sum of compensation, is sufficient redress to put things right. We note the resident has complained the landlord has yet to provide any timescales for this move. Its management transfer policy sets out that it will try its best to offer a property as soon as possible, but that it is not possible to know how long this will take. Therefore, we are not critical of the landlord for not providing timescales. We have however, recommended that it offers the residents any updates it may have on the pending move.
14. The resident also complains that the landlord should have moved her back into the property as a sole tenant once she made it aware her ex-partner had evicted her. While we recognise her strength of feeling about this, it was not within the landlord’s power to do so. Even if the resident was a joint tenant, only the courts would have the power to alter the tenancy to make her the sole tenant in the likely event that her ex-partner did not consent to this. Therefore, we cannot reasonably criticise the landlord for not considering this option as redress for its failure.

15. The landlord’s complaint handling policy requires it to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging complaints, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of acknowledgement. It notes that stage 1 responses, even when delayed, should be issued within 20 working days of acknowledgement. Regarding stage 2 responses, delays should not exceed 40 working days from acknowledgement. When there are delays, it is required to update residents and provide new timescales.
16. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlords must acknowledge stage 1 complaints and stage 2 escalations within 5 working days and issue responses within 10 and 20 working days respectively. The landlord’s policy does not set out any timescales for acknowledging complaints and is therefore not in line with the Code.
17. The Code also sets out that, when acknowledging complaints, landlords must clearly define the complaint by setting out their understanding of the issues at hand.
18. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint via the Ombudsman on 14 October 2025. The landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss this on 17 October 2025. It then followed up via email on 24 October 2025 and asked her to provide more detail. She did so on the same day, and the landlord issued its response on 31 October 2025.
19. The landlord did not formally acknowledge this complaint at any stage or set out a definition of it. This was not in keeping with its policy or the Code. We note that it issued its stage 1 response 10 working days after the initial complaint, and that therefore its omissions here did not cause any delays.
20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation via email on the same day she raised it. This was in keeping with its policy and the Code. While we note it issued its stage 2 response 33 working days later, it wrote to the resident after 19 working days, explained the reasons for the delay, and provided updated timescales. Therefore, it mitigated the impact of the delay in line with its policy and the Code.
21. However, given it did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint in line with its policy and the Code we have found service failure and made an order to address this.

Learning

22. While the landlord made a significant error with the tenancy application, it acted appropriately and sympathetically in its attempts to put this right via its complaint process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The issue at the heart of the complaint was essentially a record keeping failure, since the landlord failed to accurately transfer tenancy information from the LA to its own systems. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of accurate data entry.

Communication

24. Once the landlord was made aware of its error, its communication was generally good. It responded meaningfully and clearly to the LA and the resident when she asked for updates. Its complaint responses also clearly acknowledged its failing and explained what it intended to do to put this right.