Chromatic v RBKC & Westminster (PC-111): On the Elegance of Ignored Warnings

---

⟡ FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADJUSTMENTS – RBKC & WESTMINSTER CHILDREN’S SERVICES ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/FAILURE-ADJUSTMENT-MEDICAL-RISK
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-111_RBKCWestminsterChildrenServices_FailureProvideAdjustmentsMedicalRisk.pdf
Summary: A comprehensive evidentiary file documenting the repeated refusal of RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services to provide legally required communication adjustments despite extensive medical evidence, lawful requests, and clear health risk. The document forms part of the Disability Discrimination and Safeguarding Retaliation Sequence and serves as the foundational affidavit for the N1 Civil Claim and Judicial Review filings.

---

I. What Happened

Between March 2024 and September 2025, Polly Chromatic made multiple written requests for written-only communication, supported by clinical evidence confirming that verbal interaction caused respiratory distress, panic attacks, and voice loss due to eosinophilic asthma and muscle tension dysphonia.

Despite these lawful and medically certified requests, both boroughs — RBKC and Westminster — persisted in demanding in-person or verbal contact, repeatedly violating the Equality Act 2010.

Emails submitted within this document show:
• Repeated written notices ignored by social worker Kirsty Hornal;
• Escalation to Child Protection procedures during known illness episodes;
• Verifiable medical deterioration following procedural contact;
• A deliberate institutional pattern of disability harassment through communication misuse.

This was not miscommunication — it was systemic contempt.

---

II. What the Document Establishes

• That RBKC and Westminster breached their Equality Act 2010, Section 20 duty to make reasonable adjustments.
• That their continued verbal and in-person contact constituted harassment under Section 26 of the same Act.
• That their disregard for medical safety during respiratory crises violated Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
• That internal safeguarding reports falsified or misused medical information in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.
• That every ignored email became an act of administrative violence.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To create an evidentiary monument to the bureaucratic refusal of care.
• To ensure medical vulnerability is never again weaponised as justification for state intrusion.
• To connect this incident to the wider chronology of procedural retaliation against a disabled mother and her four U.S.–U.K. citizen children.
• Because silence, once documented, becomes the loudest form of proof.

---

IV. Legal Framework

Statutes Invoked:
• Equality Act 2010 – ss. 20 (reasonable adjustments), 26 (harassment), 27 (victimisation).
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Arts. 3, 6, 8, 14.
• Data Protection Act 2018 – s.171 (accuracy and lawful processing).
• Children Act 1989 – s.17 (duty to safeguard without discrimination).

Medical Authorities:
• Confirmed diagnoses: Eosinophilic asthma, Muscle Tension Dysphonia, PTSD.
• Evidenced exacerbations linked to procedural contact.
• Lawful communication adjustment prescribed and ignored.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

“A written request is not a suggestion. It is law in ink.”

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this document as the formal inception of the Procedural Discrimination Archive — the point where clinical evidence and bureaucratic indifference collided.
This file does not simply prove negligence; it establishes motive — the institutional preference for discomfort over compliance.

What Westminster and RBKC called “procedure” was, in truth, policy disguised as cruelty.

---

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because adjustments are not favours.
They are obligations.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.