Still No Data. Just a Portal.

---

⟡ They Received the Request. They Sent Encryption. ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/2025-SAR-DELAY
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_RBKC_FCS_SARDisclosure_Delay_EncryptedReply_NoDataSupplied.pdf

---

I. A Portal. A Password. And Still No Records.

This document marks RBKC Family and Children’s Services’ acknowledgement of a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the UK GDPR and Equality Act 2010.

But let’s be clear:

• No data was disclosed

• No timeline was confirmed

• No explanation for prior failures was included

Instead, they sent:

• An encrypted email

• A vague assurance

• And an electronic shrug, stamped “secure”

When the portal opens and nothing’s inside,
you haven’t complied — you’ve stalled with style.

---

II. When Delay Becomes Doctrine

This is not administrative lag.
This is a tactical interval, used to:

• Avoid accountability

• Rebuild institutional defences

• And run down the clock on pending litigation

They received:

• A lawful request

• A legal deadline

• A disability notice

And replied with:

Encryption and zero actual disclosure.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because encryption is not transparency.
Because delays in data are delays in justice.
Because SARs are not inbox ornaments — they are legally binding demands from individuals demanding what’s already theirs.

Let the record show:

• The request was made

• The deadline clock began

• The file was empty

• And SWANK — filed that too

This isn’t a response.
It’s procedural static disguised as security.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit digital deflection to stand in for legal compliance.
We do not consider a password an answer.
We do not believe that “portal access” meets the standard of disability-informed disclosure obligations.

Let the record show:

They received the request.
They encrypted the silence.
And SWANK — decrypted the stall for public record.

---

---

---