⟡ They Missed the Deadline. We Amended the Claim. ⟡

---

⟡ The Deadline Passed. The Audit Was Ignored. Now the Court Will See It. ⟡
“They didn’t respond. They didn’t refute. They didn’t comply. So we amended the claim.”

Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/JR-AMEND-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-17_SWANK_JudicialReviewAmendment_WCC_AuditNonCompliance_ProceduralBreach.pdf
Public declaration of amendment to active judicial review claim, citing Westminster’s failure to respond to SWANK Audit SWL/AUD-1, Final Legal Demands, and procedural oversight triggers.

---

I. What Happened

Despite:

• Multiple formal legal notices

• A statutory audit demand filed under public interest law

• Procedural warnings citing breach of disability law, data access rights, and safeguarding misuse

Westminster Children’s Services did not respond.

There was:

• No written acknowledgment

• No legal exemption cited

• No production timeline for the records demanded

As of 17 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. has amended the existing Judicial Review application to include institutional non-response, procedural default, and obstructive behaviour under audit.

---

II. What the Amendment Establishes

• That Westminster failed to comply with SWL/AUD-1 within the 10-day statutory window

• That no lawful exemption was claimed under FOI, DPA, GDPR, or safeguarding carve-outs

• That SWANK’s public oversight role was ignored in violation of transparency duties

• That ongoing safeguarding interference occurred while records remained concealed

• That non-response is now legally recorded as active obstruction of public accountability

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because silence is not neutrality.
It’s strategy.

Because they didn’t say no.
They said nothing — and hoped it would be read as permission.

And because when an institution under audit refuses to acknowledge the audit,
they’re not above scrutiny — they’re beneath response.

This isn’t a delay.
It’s a breach.

And now, it’s in the bundle.

---

IV. Violations

• Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Sections 10 & 17
  Failure to respond to a lawful information request

• Data Protection Act 2018 – Subject Access and Processing Duty
  Ongoing obstruction of records legally accessible to the data subject

• Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 27, 149
  Refusal to make or respect adjustments for disabled parent

  • Retaliatory actions documented across audit period

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6, 8, 14
  Denial of fair process, privacy violations, and discriminatory treatment

---

V. SWANK’s Position

The audit was lawful.
The deadline was clear.
The silence was intentional.
And the court will now see all of it.

They didn’t respond to the questions.
So now they’ll respond to the claim.

We warned them.
They refreshed the page.
We filed anyway.

---

 ⟡ 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.