⟡ A Complaint So Clear, Even the Ombudsman Can Understand It ⟡
“You ignored the law. Then you ignored the complaint. But you won’t ignore the record.”
Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/LGSCO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_LGSCOComplaint_RBKC-WCC_PLODisabilityBreach.pdf
Formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman detailing retaliatory safeguarding action, disability discrimination, and PLO escalation misuse.
I. What Happened
On 14 April 2025, a PLO letter was issued against a disabled mother of four, despite no findings of harm, neglect, or statutory breach after a year-long investigation.
That letter was sent just two months after she reported a social worker to police.
This complaint, filed on 23 April 2025, details a pattern of:
Retaliation following legal disclosures
Procedural misuse of safeguarding frameworks
Disability discrimination under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010
Obstruction of closure and refusal to release lawful records
Repeated refusal to implement written-only communication despite clinical documentation
Five statutory requests.
Zero acknowledgements.
And still — no final report.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Misuse of safeguarding and PLO procedures as tools of institutional reprisal
Unlawful escalation against a disabled parent without evidentiary basis
Failure to implement mandated disability accommodations
Breach of procedural justice, transparency, and closure under both the Children Act and GDPR
Entrenched cultural resistance to SEND/EHE families asserting their legal rights
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because retaliatory safeguarding is not a safeguarding concern — it’s a governance concern.
Because forcing a disabled parent to “speak anyway” is not a support plan — it’s statutory misconduct.
Because after exhausting every internal complaint mechanism, the only thing left to escalate is the record itself.
This complaint is not a request for help.
It is a procedural audit in motion.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 breach (failure to implement reasonable adjustments)
Children Act 1989 / 2004 – Procedural failure to justify safeguarding escalation
Human Rights Act 1998 – Interference with private/family life (Article 8), discrimination (Article 14)
Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR – Withholding legally requested assessment and closure documentation
LGSCO Principles of Good Administration – Violated through delay, failure to provide reasons, and abuse of discretion
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not child protection.
It was procedural retaliation.
This was not oversight.
It was reputational damage control disguised as concern.
No findings. No closure. No accountability.
So the complaint became the evidence.
And the record — permanent.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.
© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.