Chromatic v. Hornal & Westminster – On the Jurisprudence of Ignored Emails and Disability Denial

---

⟡ “Too Many Emails” Is Not a Legal Rebuttal ⟡
How Westminster Weaponised Disability-Compliant Communication as a Procedural Offence

---

Filed: 30 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/ADD-EMAILVOL-0625
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-30_SWANK_Addendum_EmailVolume_LawfulAdvocacyPattern.pdf
Addendum rebutting Westminster’s complaint about email volume from a medically-exempt parent

---

I. What Happened

Westminster Children’s Services claimed that over 350 emails sent by the Applicant — Polly Chromatic — constituted excessive or inappropriate communication.

This occurred despite the fact that:

• All communications were written due to a lawful medical exemption (muscle tension dysphonia and severe asthma).

• The Applicant had repeatedly and formally explained this accommodation to Westminster.

• The content of the emails addressed urgent safeguarding failures, medical updates, and educational evidence.

• The social workers — most notably Kirsty Hornal — ignored these communications, failed to act on evidence, and escalated interventions without legal basis.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Disability discrimination by minimising lawful accommodations
• Retaliatory framing — the parent was penalised for using the only communication method available to her
• Institutional gaslighting — baiting responses, then citing those responses as misconduct
• Neglect of substance — the focus on “email volume” masks the complete disregard of content
• Violation of dignity and procedural fairness — by expecting a chronically ill mother to repeat herself endlessly to a system that doesn’t read

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the absurdity of this accusation — “you emailed us too much while parenting four children with chronic illness and being ignored by the state” — would be laughable if it weren’t violently real.

Because documentation is not misconduct.

Because if institutions refuse to read, then we will write it into the record.

---

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010: Discriminatory failure to honour medical communication accommodations

• Article 8, ECHR: Unjustified interference with family life through administrative harassment

• Safeguarding Failures: Ignoring submitted medical and educational documentation

• Procedural Retaliation: Punishing written advocacy instead of addressing its content

---

V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd affirms that:

• Polly Chromatic’s communications were lawful, responsive, and necessary.

• The “volume” of emails reflects procedural neglect, not personal dysfunction.

• Repeated escalation by Westminster — while ignoring evidence — proves a pattern of retaliation.

• It is institutionally dishonest to provoke a response then claim victimhood when one arrives.

SWANK writes what others ignore. And we will write it again, if necessary — not because we enjoy it, but because they don’t listen.

---