Institutional Gaslighting

What is institutional gaslighting?

Institutional gaslighting occurs when an organisation or authority uses its position of power to make an individual doubt their own perceptions, competence, or rights. In a legal context, it manifests when courts, tribunals, or administrative bodies reframe a litigant's lawful conduct as confusion, incompetence, or impropriety. The effect is to shift blame from the institution's failures onto the individual. For a disabled person, this compounds the existing disadvantage and constitutes a form of discrimination.

Contents

1. 1.Mr Eastwood has become confused
2. 2.Cannot simply say he needs reasonable adjustment
3. 3.Your request is inappropriate
4. 4.Dear Mr Darius
5. 5.Had you had counsel maybe you would have won
6. 6.Wrong case number blamed on claimant
7. 7.Unsealed applications accepted from defendants but rejected from claimant
8. 8.There are other reasons that determine a lease other than exclusive possession
9. 9.My daughter has ADHD. They always leave everything to the very last minute.
10. 10.Attempted to litigate directly with Michael's psychiatrist
11. 11.Refused to accept psychiatrist's reasonable adjustments request
12. 12.HMCTS RA Reference 67862925 issued but zero adjustments ever made
13. 13."It is not appropriate for you to enter into further correspondence with me"

The 12 Instances

The Pattern

These 12 instances are not isolated errors. They form a pattern. In every case, the Claimant exercised a lawful right. In every case, the institution reframed that exercise as confusion, impropriety, or presumption. In every case, the effect was to make the Claimant doubt whether he was entitled to do what the law plainly allows.

The Claimant has ADHD and ASD. He is a protected person under the Equality Act 2010 s.6. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is anticipatory (EA 2010 s.20). The duty is on the institution, not the individual. Not one adjustment was ever made.

The question is not whether each instance, taken alone, constitutes discrimination. The question is what it means when all 12 instances are considered together, across multiple judges, multiple courts, and multiple years. The answer is a system that treats a disabled litigant in person as an inconvenience to be managed rather than a party whose rights must be protected.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated on this website are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.