In re Chromatic v. Parliamentary Health Ombudsman, On the Baroque Futility of Complaint Portals and Procedural Evasion

---

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Maladministration in the Age of Apology Forms

In re Chromatic v. Parliamentary Health Ombudsman, On the Baroque Futility of Complaint Portals and Procedural Evasion

---

📎 Metadata

Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference Code: SWL-EX-0624-PHSO-COMPLAINT
Court File Name: 2025-06-24_SWANK_Complaint_PHSO_DisabilityDiscrimination_ProceduralRetaliation
1-line summary: Formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman detailing systemic disability discrimination and retaliatory safeguarding obstruction.

---

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) regarding:

• Disability discrimination

• Medical sabotage

• Institutional retaliation

• Procedural denial of access to justice

The automated response offered forms, links, disclaimers, and waiting periods — the bureaucratic palliative for institutional collapse.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That the PHSO is aware of ongoing safeguarding retaliation tied to formal disability disclosures

• That jurisdictional exclusions and ICO procedural breaches have been recorded as maladministration

• That the U.S. citizenship of the children and their mother was ignored at critical points of intervention

• That Westminster and NHS entities operated in defiance of oversight, yet with administrative protection

The PHSO is not a tribunal. It is a vault of polite delay.
But now it is on record.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because even an automated reply is a timestamped admission that a complaint has been raised.
Because once a body is aware of injustice — and does nothing — it becomes part of the harm.

SWANK does not log for remedy. It logs for history.
For audit. For public record. For the archive that will be read after the harm is complete and the silence no longer fashionable.

---

IV. Violations and Oversight Failures

• Failure to acknowledge or intervene in retaliatory safeguarding actions

• Disability discrimination via sustained disregard of medical documentation

• Tolerance of jurisdictional evasion and child protection overreach

• Operating complaint portals that do not respond to urgency, only structure

In short: the PHSO offered a template where a tribunal was required.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This submission will not be buried. It will be read aloud in court, should it come to that.
Because when oversight bodies are complicit in silence, the record must grow louder than them.

SWANK London Ltd has submitted the complaint.
Now it awaits the silence — and logs that, too.

---

⟡ 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.