“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

⟡ Chromatic v Westminster: When Silence Was a Strategy ⟡


⟡ “They Escalated to PLO, But Forgot to Answer the SAR.” ⟡
Ombudsman complaint documenting disability discrimination, procedural sabotage, and data protection breach by Westminster City Council

Filed: 22 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/LGO-COMPLAINT-PLO-DISCRIMINATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-22_SWANK_LGOComplaint_Westminster_DisabilitySARProceduralBreach.pdf
Formal complaint to the LGSCO citing systemic failures by Westminster Children’s Services under the Equality Act and UK GDPR

I. What Happened

On 22 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a detailed complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, outlining four intersecting violations by Westminster City Council’s Children’s Services:

  1. Disability discrimination: Written-only communication requests ignored despite medical certification, leading to physical harm

  2. Procedural sabotage: No outcome report issued after a year of Child in Need assessments, then sudden escalation to PLO

  3. Data protection breach: A Subject Access Request (SAR) submitted under UK GDPR was unlawfully delayed past deadline

  4. Retaliation and opacity: Harassment complaints against social worker Kirsty Hornal were closed without written explanation

The document makes it clear: this wasn’t bureaucratic error. It was calculated obfuscation — designed to isolate, exhaust, and escalate.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: No closure report for CIN process; unlawful PLO escalation; failure to respond to SAR

  • Human impact: Respiratory flare-ups, psychological deterioration, and intensified legal distress

  • Power dynamics: Council forcing escalation while denying the family access to evidence and due process

  • Institutional failure: Collapsing internal accountability paired with administrative retaliation

  • Unacceptable conduct: Using safeguarding pathways to punish lawful resistance, not protect children

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because SARs are not optional.
Because public law fairness is not a formality.
Because retaliating against a disabled mother for asserting her rights isn’t just wrong — it’s a pattern.
Because you can’t demand verbal compliance when the medical file says “no voice.”
And because when the council escalates without explaining the last escalation, it ceases to be protection — and becomes persecution.

This wasn’t negligence.
This was deliberate legal erosion, wrapped in child protection rhetoric.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – failure to make adjustments and retaliatory conduct following protected acts

  • UK GDPR / Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–54 – unlawful failure to respond to SAR within the required time

  • Children Act 1989, Section 17 – misapplication of safeguarding escalation without procedural closure

  • Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) – failure to document, inform, or involve

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – denial of due process and unjustified interference with family life

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that safeguarding frameworks can be weaponised to punish non-compliance.
We do not accept that access to personal data can be delayed to gain legal advantage.
We do not accept that omitting a case outcome is a clerical oversight.

This complaint is not a request. It is a jurisdictional reprimand — logged, timestamped, and filed for systemic review.

⟡ 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.

Documented Obsessions