You often see DRSs whereby there is confusion regarding the complainant's identity. This happens when you get say a company director who has put it in his own name but he should really have put it in his company's name. Or when a subsidiary company has filed the DRS but it's the parent that has the 'rights' under the policy.
In these cases, the experts can usually see what's gone on and they are quite flexible in acknowledging the balls up and acting accordingly. The DRS is meant to be accessible to the layman, and the layman perhaps doesn't appreciate that he and his limited company are in fact two separate legal entities.
The bits quoted above from Business Link suggest that someone from the UA ought to have submitted the DRS (or registered the domain name) in their name on behalf of the UA.
So if the point of the question is to try and challenge the validity of the DRS on this technicality, I'm not sure that the expert would be so rigid!
If a domain is registered in the name Mickey Mouse, one can report this to Nominet and they will look into it because it's inappropriately registered. If you are right about the UA not being able to enter into a contract, maybe report the domain to Nominet and see if they agree?
IANAL, I am a know all plonker, etc, etc.