⟡ Formal Complaint: When Care Refused to Communicate ⟡
“Refusal to provide written communication despite documented vocal limitations.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/CARE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Complaint_GSTT_UnsafeCare_DisabilityDiscrimination.pdf
A formal complaint submitted to the Care Quality Commission exposing clinical negligence and retaliatory safeguarding at St Thomas’ Hospital. A masterclass in bureaucratic cruelty under NHS letterhead.
I. What Happened
On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a formal complaint to the Care Quality Commission. The subject: her mistreatment at St Thomas’ Hospital during emergency visits on 4 November 2024 and 2 January 2025.
The details are unambiguous:
She arrived in respiratory distress.
She requested written communication, per her documented disability.
The hospital refused.
She was left untreated.
A safeguarding referral was filed afterward — not to protect her, but to punish her.
The complaint was sent formally, copied to herself for record integrity, and references her publicly posted Written Communication Policy.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Refusal of urgent care for a disabled woman in respiratory crisis
Direct violation of the Equality Act 2010 — failure to make reasonable adjustments
Use of safeguarding as a retaliatory shield after clinical neglect
Institutionalised ableism: refusal to communicate is positioned as “concern”
Secondary trauma inflicted on children through false safeguarding escalation
Medical policy ignored, and documented disability treated as defiance
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this wasn’t poor service.
It was structural punishment of disability disguised as clinical neutrality.
This complaint transforms a “hospital incident” into evidence of systemic rot.
It shows how public health institutions — when confronted by difference — often retreat into bureaucratic retaliation, using safeguarding to silence, reframe, and punish the disabled.
When you ask for written communication and get a social worker instead,
that’s not a care pathway.
That’s a warning shot.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept hospitals that punish patients for asking to breathe.
We do not accept retaliation filed as “referral.”
We do not accept that safeguarding powers exist to deflect clinical liability.
SWANK London Ltd. declares:
When written policy is ignored,
When help is replaced by harm,
When silence is treated as threat —
We file the complaint.
And when the hospital doesn’t respond?
We log it in public, forever.
⟡ 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.