Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202527970)

Decision
Case ID	202527970
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paradigm Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her son. She asked to be placed on the landlord’s management move list following incidents of domestic violence. She raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her request and said it should have been handled with more urgency. The landlord is aware that the resident is pregnant.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request for a management move

5. The landlord failed to apply its management move and domestic abuse policies, or communicate effectively with the resident, at several stages of her complaint. It failed to consider any support the resident might need to complete her application while she was vulnerable.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to adhere to its policy timescales at both stages of the resident’s complaint. It also failed to consider if it would have been more appropriate to escalate the resident’s original complaint than open a new one.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a senior director the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 17 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 made up as follows: £700 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the resident’s request for a management move £50 for its complaint handling failures This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 17 March 2026
3	Learning order The landlord must review its domestic abuse policy against its management move policy and consider how to remedy any contradictions. The landlord must evidence the work it has undertaken to review the policies and any changes it has made as a result.	No later than 17 March 2026
4	Specific action The landlord must write to the resident to set out whether she can make a new management move application to its panel. If she can, it must set out details of how she can do this. If it will not allow a new application, it must clearly set out how it will support the resident to be rehoused through other means. The landlord must provide a copy of its letter or email to this Service.	No later than 17 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 March 2025	The resident complained to the landlord because she said she had faced repeated barriers to her management move application. She said she felt the landlord was using her rent arrears as a reason to stop her moving. She asked the landlord to urgently review her application, to review how it handled domestic violence cases, and to provide a written explanation as to why rent arrears had been used to obstruct her move.
25 March 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it had not upheld the resident’s complaint as it was unable to evidence any service failures regarding its handling of the request. It said it had not rejected the resident’s management move application due to rent arrears and was keen to present the case to its panel again once it had received the evidence it requested.
23 June 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said it: had consistently failed to support her during the management move process despite receiving multiple emails from her Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (IDVA) had not responded to an email dated 13 June 2025, in which she had asked it to confirm a time to visit her property was delaying housing support and directly impacting her safety   The resident asked for a new housing officer to be assigned to her case. She also asked for the landlord to provide an immediate update on her management move application and any security measures it was taking in the meantime.
14 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It provided a timeline of events and said: it did not uphold the complaint as it had maintained consistent communication with the resident throughout the management move process it was unable to assign a new housing officer to her case as each officer dealt with a specific location the resident first reported a domestic violence incident on 19 December 2024, and the landlord made contact on the same day to make a customer support referral and outline its management move process its management move panel heard the resident’s case on 13 January 2025 and requested further supporting information the resident’s management move application was heard again on 14 February 2025, but still required further supporting information to confirm that it was unsafe for her to return to her property it would review the resident’s management move application again once it received the information it had requested it does not currently operate a sanctuary scheme, but had offered to explore funding for safety measures and requested confirmation of any specific precautionary needs it had remained in regular contact with third parties, including the police and local council, throughout the duration of the case
15 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: the landlord’s handling of her case had lacked empathy and increased her emotional distress the landlord had been in receipt of all relevant information since December 2024, and had shown no urgency in moving her application forward repeated requests for the landlord to visit her property had been ignored she has frequently had to chase the landlord for updates the landlord’s decision not to assign a new housing officer to her case showed disregard for her wellbeing the landlord only considered sanctuary measures after pressure from third parties, and there was still no firm timeline or list of measures to be put in place she felt that the landlord had misunderstood her area preferences, and repeatedly deflected responsibility to the local council she wanted the landlord to immediately reassign her case to a different housing officer, and to provide a formal apology with a clear timeline of next steps relating to sanctuary measures and her management move application
19 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint for the same reasons set out at stage 1, and said: it had changed the resident’s housing officer and booked in a home visit for 19 August 2025 it was still awaiting the requested supporting information to progress her management move application it was confident that it had been clear with the resident about the information it required and that its communication had been to the required standard the legal obligation to provide sanctuary measures lay with the local council, but it had provided the resident with a ring doorbell on a voluntary basis the resident had provided a crime reference number on 12 August 2025, which it had passed to the relevant team to consider a lock change it felt it had been clear about what its responsibilities were and what support it could offer the resident it was confident that it had worked within its policies and procedures, and that its policies and procedures were effective
10 October 2025	The landlord provided a further formal response to the resident, which it said was not a complaint response but was intended to address her ongoing concerns. It said: its decision not to add the resident to its management move list remained unchanged as the process was not appropriate for the urgency of her circumstances at the time the resident’s appeal was considered, neither the resident nor the police had provided the requested information the local council had a statutory duty to consider the resident’s emergency housing application under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, and the landlord would support the resident in making those applications it had called the resident on 26 September 2025 and offered to pay for a hotel stay for a week so she would have time and space to make emergency housing applications it had not received the homicide risk warning until after the appeal hearing of the resident’s management move application, but it had stepped up its engagement with other agencies following this it had attended 2 multi-agency meetings in the last 2 weeks, and would continue to do so for as long as necessary to support the resident its safeguarding processes generally involved referring residents to local statutory services, which would not have added to the resident’s support in this case as she was already engaging with several services it strongly recommended that the resident approach any local council to prioritise her case and take immediate steps to ensure her safety
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had failed to grant her a management move despite “overwhelming professional evidence,” which had caused her to live in constant fear for her safety. She wanted the landlord to reconsider its decision and to compensate her for distress caused.

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 for a management move
Finding	Maladministration

7. Following the resident’s initial report of domestic violence on 19 December 2024, the landlord made a customer support referral on the same day in line with its safeguarding policy. The resident said social services had advised her to ask for a management move. The landlord explained this process to the resident in line with its management moves policy, which says that the landlord’s ability to undertake management moves is dependent on suitable properties becoming available.
8. On 5 January 2025 the resident said she wanted to be moved. She said she had been staying with a friend since December 2024 due to safety concerns. She asked the landlord to bring a planned home visit on 8 January 2025 forward. She said she had been in contact with the police and a domestic violence charity and was willing to provide all the necessary documentation.
9. The landlord called the resident the next day and went through its management move criteria. Whilst this was reasonable, its management move policy says that it will visit a resident at their home to complete an application. Where there is a stated risk to personal safety, the landlord will visit within 3 working days. The visit date of 8 January 2025 was 8 working days after the resident’s initial request. The landlord did not address the resident’s request to bring her home visit forward. Given the nature of the risk the resident had reported, the landlord failed to consider its own policy provisions around urgent situations.
10. The landlord met with the resident on 10 January 2025. The meeting was delayed on the resident’s request due to safety concerns over being at her property. The landlord provided further information about its management move policy and requested supporting evidence from third parties. It confirmed the resident’s preferred areas and said it would investigate to see if it covered them. At this stage, the landlord had been clear with the resident about its management move process and attempted to manage her expectations.
11. The landlord maintained regular contact with third parties such as the police and local council between January and February 2025. It contacted the police on 17 January 2025 and requested a report to support the resident’s management move application. On 20 January 2025the local council wrote to the landlord and said it had placed the resident in emergency accommodation for the next 56 days, and a management transfer would need to be discussed. The landlord responded explaining that it was awaiting supporting documents from the police.
12. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 February 2025 and explained that its management moves panel needed more information to make a decision. It asked for further evidence including a police risk assessment and communication from a domestic violence charity. The landlord’s management move policy is not clear on what supporting evidence should look like, but it does set out that all applications should be supported by third party agencies. The landlord’s request for further evidence was therefore reasonable.
13. The landlord started liaising with the resident’s IDVA in June 2025. In an email dated 10 June 2025, the IDVA requested that sanctuary schemes be put in place for extra security while the resident was awaiting a move. The IDVA chased a response on 16 June 2025 and provided the landlord with a letter to support the resident’s move request. The landlord responded on 24 June 2025 saying it could look at funding for measures such as a ring doorbell and additional locks if required. This was a delayed response that should have been provided more urgently given the circumstances.
14. The landlord’s domestic abuse policy says that it will “work with the survivor to install target hardening adaptations to improve the safety of the property” in circumstances where they remain in their home. Although the resident was trying to move, the landlord had been on notice about reports of domestic violence for over 6 months. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider any additional security measures it could take to safeguard the resident at an earlier date.
15. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 June 2025 and asked when it would like access to her home. The landlord had said previously that it would need to inspect her home as part of its management move criteria. It did not respond to the resident’s email.
16. On 20 January 2025 the resident’s IDVA asked the landlord to prioritise moving the resident. Although the IDVA had already provided the supporting letter requested and the resident was trying to arrange a home visit, the landlord replied that it could not progress the management move application until further information was supplied. This response was obstructive and inconsistent with its management moves policy, which sets out that it will support applicants to gather evidence. The landlord failed to consider its own policy or provide any assistance to help the resident obtain the outstanding information.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it was still awaiting police confirmation of serious risk and that the resident had not progressed her application by supplying the requested information. However, internal correspondence shows the landlord had intended to make a police disclosure request, and there is no evidence it did so. Given this and the resident’s circumstances, it was unreasonable for the landlord to place sole responsibility on her to progress the application.
18. The landlord declined the resident’s management move application on 12 September 2025 due to a lack of supporting evidence. The resident appealed the decision on 16 September 2025. The landlord rejected the resident’s appeal on 23 September 2025 despite receiving a MARAC letter the day prior. It said that this letter supported the appeal, but it also needed a risk assessment from the police. It is unclear why this was the case. The landlord failed to use discretion when it would have been suitable for it to do so.
19. On 24 September 2025 the police told the landlord that the resident was at risk of homicide and needed to be urgently moved. Despite this, the landlord said it would not revisit the resident’s management move application. In its ‘further formal response’ dated 10 October 2025, the landlord said a management move was inappropriate for the urgency of the resident’s circumstances. This reasoning conflicted earlier advice and was not in line with its own management move policy, which sets out guidance for urgent situations where there is a risk to personal safety.
20. It is also unclear why the landlord made this decision so late. The resident’s IDVA had confirmed she was in a high-risk situation at a much earlier date. The landlord could have avoided causing unnecessary time and effort to the resident by communicating that its management moves process was unsuitable for her earlier.
21. The landlord’s domestic abuse policy clearly states that “if a survivor requires alternative accommodation on an emergency basis, we will provide temporary accommodation for the initial move and then work with partner agencies to secure alternative hostel or move-on accommodation for the survivor.” The landlord did not follow its policy until it offered the resident a hotel stay in its letter on 10 October 2025. It is unclear why it took the landlord so long to follow its own policy.
22. This also contradicts the information provided by the landlord to the resident and all involved third parties throughout the duration of the complaint. The landlord repeatedly said the responsibility to provide temporary accommodation was with the local council. The landlord provided conflicting information at several stages of the complaint which likely heightened the resident’s distress and caused additional time and effort.
23. The landlord relied on its management move policy in its handling of the resident’s request to be moved. While it appropriately applied its policy for the most part, there were several failings that caused significant distress to the resident. The landlord did not follow its own domestic abuse policy and failed to communicate effectively with the resident at all stages. It did not identify any of these failings in its complaint responses or attempt to put things right for the resident.
24. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of her request to be moved had a “devastating impact” on her and her son. She said she told the landlord about her distress on several occasions and felt she was not treated with empathy. She said she spent months away from her home and was impacted financially by having to pay for hotel stays. Repeated delays and uncertainty impacted her mental health during a period in which she was vulnerable.
25. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £600 and £1,000 for failures which had a significant impact on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a total of £700 in recognition of the failures identified in this report. This amount reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

26. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, which is compliant with the Code. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a full stage 1 response to the resident within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive an acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a formal response within 20 working days.
28. Following her contact on 23 June 2025, it may have been reasonable for the landlord to consider escalating the resident’s original complaint rather than opening a new one. The complaints were both about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management move application and were within 3 months of each other. The landlord’s complaints policy does not set out a time limit within which a resident must escalate a complaint. It may have avoided any confusion for the landlord to set out its reasons for opening a new complaint.
29. The landlord failed to provide either of its complaint responses within the timescales set out by its complaints policy and the Code. Its stage 1 response was 1 working day late, and its stage 2 response was 5 working days late. While these were minor delays, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise and apologise for the delays in its complaint responses.
30. The landlord’s complaint responses were clear and thorough. It addressed the complaint issues point by point and was clear on next steps at each stage. This was reasonable, but we have made an overall finding of service failure due to the failures set out above. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

31. The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points in its complaint responses. It would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes for it to set out areas of learning to the resident within its internal complaint procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord’s record keeping was positive and allowed us to complete a full and thorough investigation.

Communication

33. The landlord failed to proactively communicate with the resident at all stages of her complaint. It was unclear on its position around emergency moves and provided information that was confusing at times.