Polly Chromatic v RBKC: Seven-Day Expiring Data Access Sent Without Password

---

⟡ “We Will Send You the Password Shortly. Your Right to Access Depends on Our Schedule.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Disclosure. It Was a Countdown Clock. Filed With a Seven-Day Threat and Velvet Obstruction.

Filed: 30 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/SAR-ACCESSLIMITATION-LINKEXPIRY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-30_SWANK_SARNotice_RBKC_DataDisclosure15106629.pdf
Email from RBKC providing an expiring link to encrypted subject access disclosure with no immediate password, no accommodations, and a seven-day expiration barrier.

---

I. What Happened

At 09:55 on 30 May 2025, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea emailed Polly Chromatic in response to Subject Access Request Ref. 15106629.

The message contained:

• A secure link to an encrypted message portal

• A note stating: “we will send you a password shortly”

• A warning that the link would expire in seven days

• No disability access considerations

• No downloadable documentation or printable option

• No assurance of lawful format compliance

The password was promised but not included — turning access into a two-step digital scavenger hunt.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Access to personal data was delayed and constrained by artificial limits

• Delivery relied on non-synchronous digital parts — link in one email, password by text

• The method deliberately excluded those without dual-channel access

• The seven-day expiry functions as a procedural threat

• This is part of a broader institutional pattern of disclosure avoidance by friction

This wasn’t protection. It was performance architecture with an expiration timer.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the right to access your data shouldn’t depend on whether you check your text messages fast enough.
Because digital gates don’t protect privacy — they protect the institution from accountability.
Because this was not service delivery — it was sabotage via design.
Because we don’t just request records — we record the way they were denied.

---

IV. Violations

• UK GDPR, Article 15 – Right of access obstructed by link expiration and delay

• Data Protection Act 2018 – Lack of accessibility violates fairness and transparency

• Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – No accommodations for known access needs

• UNCRPD Article 13 – No provision for accessible remedy for disabled person

• ICO SAR Code of Practice – Discourages use of excessive security barriers

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t secure delivery. It was an escape room with jurisdictional consequence.
This wasn’t timely. It was delayed by design and expired by threat.
This wasn’t compliant. It was compliance cosplay — archived for the next tribunal.

SWANK hereby files this notice as the procedural mirror to the password-texted obstruction already logged.
The countdown began.
The access did not.
But the archive never expires.

---

⟡ 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 digital expiry deserves jurisdiction.

© 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.

---