Polly Chromatic v Westminster and RBKC: Ombudsman Petition Filed After Disability-Based Retaliation

---

⟡ “We Were Told to Raise It with the Ombudsman. So We Did.” ⟡
A Bureaucratic Referral Filed in Protest of Procedural Violence

Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/LGSCO/COMPLAINT-WESTMINSTERRBKC-DISCRIMINATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_Complaint_LGSCO_WestminsterRBKC_SafeguardingDiscrimination.pdf
Formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) regarding safeguarding misuse, disability discrimination, and retaliation by Westminster and RBKC.

---

I. What Happened

On 31 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The complaint detailed how Westminster and RBKC:

• Escalated intervention after legal filings and judicial reviews

• Denied medical and disability accommodations

• Retaliated against lawful procedural action by removing four disabled U.S. citizen children

• Used safeguarding powers to override jurisdictional limits and obstruct due process

• Ignored prior complaints and refused to disclose necessary data

The complaint was filed after both councils continued retaliatory conduct despite formal notice, placing the burden of remedy on external oversight bodies.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Safeguarding was used as an instrument of punishment

• Disabled U.S. citizen children were removed without legal justification

• Disability rights were denied in both process and outcome

• Westminster and RBKC refused to acknowledge the harm of their actions or correct course

• Procedural safeguards became mechanisms of institutional aggression

This was not service failure. It was policy weaponised as removal.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because complaints systems exist to delay reckoning.
Because when four disabled American children are removed in retaliation for legal action, it is not a “service issue” — it is state aggression through administrative euphemism.
Because the archive was created precisely for what ombudsmen cannot contain:
Retaliation with a council letterhead.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, Section 22 – Duty to promote the welfare of the child

• Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Disability discrimination and lack of accommodation

• UK GDPR, Article 15 – Data access repeatedly denied

• Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, and 13 – Denial of due process, family life, and effective remedy

• UNCRPD, Articles 7, 13, and 23 – Rights of disabled children, access to justice, and family unity denied

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a record of harm the state refused to name.
This wasn’t an appeal for correction. It was an evidentiary dispatch submitted in protest.
This wasn’t a bureaucratic act. It was an act of jurisdictional preservation.

SWANK logs this not because we expect resolution — but because the archive outlasts denial.

---

⟡ 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.

---