Polite delays, perfunctory empathy — Westminster’s signature approach to accountability

---

🏛️ An Acknowledgement of Administrative Banality: Westminster’s Response to Complaint 39170353

Date: 5 March 2025

---

✉️ To:

Polly Chromatic

---

🖋️ Subject:

Your Complaint 39170353 Concerning the North West Social Work Team

---

📜 Dear Ms Chromatic,

We are in receipt of your correspondence, formally acknowledged on 19 February 2025.

It is, of course, regrettable that you have found cause to express dissatisfaction with the service provided—though, given the prevailing standards within the North West Social Work Team, perhaps not entirely surprising.

In accordance with Westminster City Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure (a document whose aspirations far exceed its operational reality), we aspire to furnish you with a written response by 12 March 2025.

Should we, as is customary, fail to meet this modest timeline, rest assured that we will provide you with suitably bureaucratic explanations, accompanied by vague assurances of “progress.”

For your edification, the full procedural spectacle can be reviewed at the following link:
🔗 Westminster Complaints Procedure

---

🖋️ Yours, with predictable formality,

Customer Relationship Team
Westminster City Council

---

🏷️ Labels:

westminster complaints, social work dissatisfaction, swank dispatches, administrative evasion, procedural theatre, bureaucratic courtesies

---

---

🦚 Formal Complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman – Concerning the Conduct of Ms. Jane Mountain and RBKC’s Institutional Refusal to Investigate

Filed under the documentation of professional malpractice, disability discrimination, and the solemn burial of procedural rights.

---

4 May 2025
To:
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding the Conduct of Ms Jane Mountain – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)

---

📜 Dear Sir or Madam,

I submit, with due formality, this complaint concerning Ms. Jane Mountain,
a social worker employed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).

This complaint addresses:

• Ms. Mountain’s own misconduct,

• The Council’s refusal to investigate,

• And the broader pattern of institutional evasion at RBKC.

---

📚 I. Background: The Visit, the Promise, the Vanishing Act

In July 2023, Ms. Mountain attended my home alongside Mr. Earl Bullhead.

During this visit:

• I presented formal legal name change documentation for myself and my children;

• Ms. Mountain photographed these documents and assured me of her assistance —

An assurance which, like so many from RBKC, quietly dissolved without action.

Subsequently:

• Ms. Mountain co-authored an assessment containing multiple factual inaccuracies,

• Chief among them, the false claim that I "yell at my children" —

  • Based on a deeply misinterpreted phone call with my abusive mother,

  • And grotesquely misrepresented as evidence of emotional harm.

Worse still:

• This assessment was finalised and circulated without

  • My consultation;

  • My review;

  • Or my consent.

• It was then withheld from me for three full months,

  • A delay RBKC has never sought to justify.

Falsehoods were thus embedded in official records, beyond my ability to contest.

---

📜 II. Medical Realities and Professional Impossibilities

I live with:

• Eosinophilic asthma;

• Muscle tension dysphonia,

Both of which:

• Severely restrict my ability to speak under stress;

• Render "yelling" not merely unlikely, but physiologically impossible.

These conditions:

• Were formally documented;

• Explicitly communicated to RBKC staff.

Ms. Mountain’s perpetuation of the allegation:

• Ignored medical realities;

• Violated the Equality Act 2010;

• Demonstrated disability-based prejudice disguised as professional judgment.

---

📚 III. RBKC’s Response: Administrative Amnesia

On 24 March 2025, I lodged a formal complaint (Ref: 15083377), outlining these matters.

RBKC’s reply:

• Declined investigation,

• Citing the familiar — and legally tenuous — excuse that the events were "over 12 months old."

This position is:

• Factually incorrect — my communications continued into the present;

• Procedurally indefensible — the impact of the misconduct remains ongoing.

RBKC:

• Failed to implement reasonable adjustments;

• Failed to investigate credible concerns;

• Failed, in short, to govern itself with even cursory compliance to law or conscience.

---

📜 IV. Grounds for Ombudsman Review

I respectfully request the Ombudsman investigate:

• Maladministration, for the refusal to investigate substantiated allegations;

• Breach of the Equality Act 2010, by denying reasonable adjustments;

• Failure of procedural fairness, due to withheld assessments and exclusion from participation;

• Ongoing harm, caused by the entrenchment of false narratives in professional records.

I am in possession of:

• All correspondence;

• Medical documentation;

• Evidence of procedural failings.

These can be furnished upon request.

---

📬 Closing Request

I await:

• Confirmation of receipt of this complaint;

• Notification of any further steps required to proceed.

I trust the Ombudsman will treat this matter with the gravity it commands.

---

📜 Yours,

With due and documented concern,
Polly

---

---

🦚 Response to Complaint Ref: 15083377 – Reaffirmation of Facts, Formality, and the Request for Procedural Competence

Filed under the documentation of evidence reaffirmation, cross-borough evasion, and the constitutional demand for administrative literacy.

---

12 March 2025
To:
Customer Relationship Team
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)
Subject: Response to Complaint Ref: 15083377 – Reaffirmation of Facts, Formality, and the Request for Procedural Competence

---

🧾 Dear Customer Relationship Team,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding Complaint Ref: 15083377 —
though I must observe, with due politeness, that the content is both puzzling and disheartening.

I am compelled, yet again, to clarify what ought to be a matter of basic internal record:

RBKC social workers have, demonstrably and indisputably, been involved in my case.

This is not supposition.
It is documented reality —
substantiated through correspondence, assessments, and direct professional contact originating from your department.

Accordingly:

I expect any further attempts at strategic denial to cease,
and for this matter to be reviewed with the seriousness the contradiction demands.

---

📜 Cross-Borough Courtesy (But Not a Deflection)

While I have extended the courtesy of informing Westminster social care services of related concerns,
this in no way diminishes — nor displaces — RBKC’s own responsibilities.

The complaint pertains to the actions and omissions of RBKC personnel,
and must be investigated by RBKC with due rigour and impartiality.

---

📚 Submission of Evidence: A Logistical Request

As previously noted, I am in possession of extensive documentation, including:

• Emails;

• Official assessments;

• Written communications with RBKC social workers.

To facilitate the appropriate review, kindly confirm:

• The correct email address or portal for submission;

• Any specific format or naming conventions required for internal processing.

Efficiency, once requested politely, must now be solicited firmly.

---

🩻 Disability Accommodations & Record Access – Ongoing Concerns

Parallel to the primary complaint, I remind RBKC of its obligations regarding:

• Implementation of reasonable adjustments, in line with the Equality Act 2010;

• Full access to all personal records, without fragmentation, deferral, or strategic redirection.

I expect written confirmation that these matters:

• Are being actioned appropriately;

• Will be reflected in all future correspondence and procedural handling.

---

📜 Next Steps – Kindly Clarify Timeline and Receipt

I request:

• Written confirmation of receipt of this correspondence;

• Clear instructions for submission of supporting evidence;

• A formal outline of the expected timeline for the substantive review of this complaint.

Given the prior confusion, contradiction, and procedural contortion,

I trust you will appreciate my insistence on precision, transparency, and exhaustive documentation going forward.

---

📜 Yours,

With due constitutional formality and procedural vigilance,
Polly

---

---

🦚 On Institutional Denial and the Gentle Art of Not My Department: A Formal Response from RBKC

Filed under the documentation of polite rejection and administrative boundary-drawing.

---

11 March 2025
Our reference: 15083377
To: Polly

---

📜 Dear Polly,

Subject: Your complaint, Reference 15083377

Thank you for your complaint, received on 11 March 2025.

---

🧾 On Why This Is, Apparently, Not Our Problem

Unfortunately, we must inform you that we are unable to deal with your complaint, as — in the considered view of this department —

the complaint is not for this organisation.

RBKC social workers, we are assured, are not presently involved with your family.

Conclusion:
Thus, your concerns — however articulated or documented — have been filed neatly into the category of someone else’s business.

---

📚 If We Have Misunderstood (Which, Naturally, Is Not Assumed)

Should you feel that our understanding of your concerns is incomplete, you are, of course, welcome to correct us.

Alternatively — and more conveniently for our correspondence metrics — if you remain dissatisfied,

you may now proceed to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the Ombudsman).

---

🧭 On Your Journey to the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman investigates:

• Individual complaints about councils;

• All adult social care providers;

• Some organisations providing local public services.

It operates:

• Fairly;

• Impartially;

• Free of charge (though rarely free of procedural delay).

Please note:

• You usually have up to 12 months to make your complaint, starting from the date you first knew about the issue —
  not from the date of this letter (an important technicality).

• Some matters may be outside their jurisdiction, in which case they will explain — firmly but courteously — why your concerns shall be dismissed elsewhere.

---

📜 Important Administrative Note

When approaching the Ombudsman, you will need to provide:

• A copy of this letter;

• All earlier responses received from us (should you still possess the originals in unredacted form).

This will allow the Ombudsman to consider your complaint — with, one hopes, more appetite for engagement.

---

📜 Yours bureaucratically,

The Customer Relationship Team
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

---