By Carl Davis
The Housing Ombudsman’s finding of severe maladministration against Clarion Housing Group, the largest housing association in Britain, over the preventable death of Mark Pearce went almost uncommented upon within the social housing sector.
There were no hastily convened press conferences of executives apologising for the mistreatment of Mark. No outpourings of horror at the normalisation of discriminatory behaviour towards resident with disabilities and mental health problems. No swathe of new measures to prevent it happening again.
Source: The Guardian
Amongst disabled housing association tenants and residents – and all those who are concerned with equality and inclusion – this prompts a broader concern about the efficacy of the Housing Ombudsman’s system in addressing complaints mishandling and severe maladministration. L&Q for example has twice the national average of Ombudsman ‘severe maladministration’ findings in spite of being led by the chair of the G15 group; the collective of the largest housing associations in the country.
Systemic Discrimination Overlooked
The Housing Ombudsman’s special investigation into L&Q, released in July 2023, revealed critical issues regarding their approach to residents with disabilities and mental health problems. The findings accepted a pattern of heavy-handed, unfair, and dismissive treatment but these issues were never formally acknowledged as disability discrimination. L&Q’s chief executive, Fiona Fletcher-Smith, never had to address the specific allegations of discriminatory practices within her organisation.
The sector and the individual landlords are able to cling on to negative perceptions of residents with disabilities and mental health problems instead of learning from special investigations by the Ombudsman.
The Housing Ombudsman has repeatedly found ‘severe maladministration’ against Clarion, but is unable to impose meaningful sanctions
The Ombudsman’s report on the Clarion case highlights the tragic consequences of inadequate responses to noise complaints and the subsequent actions taken to address these shortcomings. However, it notably lacks a critical examination of negative perceptions and the mistreatment of Mark Pearce.
Mark had a history of mental health issues, but the report fails to delve into the extent to which Mark’s pleas for help were dismissed or diminished because of institutionalised discrimination against residents with mental health problems or neurodiverse conditions. So, while the Ombudsman’s report offers some valuable learning points around processes, it overlooks the critical issue of systemic bias against vulnerable residents.
The Standardisation Tendency
The Ombudsman’s recommendation for landlords to adopt a ‘tailored approach’ towards such residents glosses over the underlying issues of discrimination and bias. For any large corporate body, the tendency is towards standardisation to make administration easier. Enabling a tailored or flexible approach requires a determined effort and commitment that is currently absent from those in charge of service delivery at the leading housing associations.
The consequence of these conditions is that the sector continues to be left to choose whether to acknowledge, record, and consider disability in its decision-making processes, even though compliance with the Equality Act is mandatory, not optional.
This situation calls for a thorough review and potentially a restructuring of the Housing Ombudsman’s system to ensure that it can effectively serve its purpose without being influenced by the interests , prejudices and discriminatory behaviour and practices of the social landlords it is supposed to regulate.
See more about SHAC’s Disability Visibility campaign and resources.
23 November 2023
If you have a WordPress account, get notifications about new articles by subscribing below: