We Asked for Medical Care. They Sent Safeguarding. — The NHS Is Now Answerable to Parliament

---

⟡ Final NHS Complaint Escalated to PHSO: Discrimination and Retaliation Filed ⟡

“This isn’t about treatment delays. It’s about treatment as punishment — and the archive now includes Parliament’s ombudsman.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/PHSO/NHS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_PHSO_NHSComplaint_DisabilityDiscrimination_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
A formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) regarding NHS disability discrimination and retaliatory safeguarding abuse following lawful legal action. Submitted after exhausting all internal routes, with references to multiple regulators and an active judicial review.

---

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a formal complaint to the PHSO citing:

• Disability discrimination by:

  • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

  • Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

  • Pembridge Villas Surgery (Dr. Philip Reid)

• Retaliatory safeguarding measures imposed after filing lawful complaints

• Refusal to comply with a written-only adjustment, constituting medical harm

• Obstruction of access to care, and abuse of safeguarding powers to neutralise legal risk

The complaint includes prior filings to:

• GMC, LGSCO, ICB, ICO, and multiple NHS internal systems

• A live civil claim for £23M

• A Judicial Review in the High Court

• A permanent public record at www.swankarchive.com

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That PHSO is now formally responsible for reviewing NHS-wide discrimination

• That institutional actors have used care frameworks to punish dissent

• That the complainant has followed every legitimate process

• That the file is no longer private — it is published, cited, and publicly archived

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the NHS cannot claim ignorance once PHSO is notified.
Because safeguarding should not trigger retaliation when rights are exercised.
Because the denial of medical care isn’t a breakdown — it’s a strategy, now escalated to oversight.

This is not a review.
It’s a declaration of jurisdiction.
And if the ombudsman won’t act, SWANK will document that failure too.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept health care as conditional upon silence.
We do not accept safeguarding as a gag order.
We do not accept that harm ends when the ombudsman says "we’re not taking action."

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If care is denied in retaliation,
We archive the cause.
If oversight fails,
We publish the failure.
And if this complaint is ignored —
It will still be seen.

---

⟡ 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.

What the NHS Missed — Filed, Bound, and Worth £23 Million

---

⟡ The Bundle They Pretended Not to Read ⟡

Filed: 1 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/ATTACHMENTS-BUNDLE
📎 Download PDF — 2025-03-01_SWANK_GMC_AttachmentsBundle_StThomas_Chelsea_DisabilityNeglect_SafeguardingEvidence_£23MClaim.pdf

---

I. What the NHS Missed — Filed, Bound, and Worth £23 Million

This supporting bundle accompanies the formal complaint submitted to the General Medical Council against:

• Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

• Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

The documents within:

• Confirm written disability adjustments issued and then ignored

• Detail harm caused by denied treatment, forced verbal demands, and retaliatory escalation

• Show medical events misrepresented — and then used against the patient

• Evidence systemic failure not as mistake, but as coordinated indifference

They didn’t lose the paperwork.
They read it — and acted against it.

---

II. What Was Sent. What They Pretended Wasn’t There.

Included in the bundle:

• Clinical diagnoses supporting written-only contact

• Allergy documentation contradicted by treatment

• Internal NHS notes minimising trauma and bypassing consent

• A chronology of safeguarding escalation that followed every complaint filed

This isn’t "oversight."
It’s strategic documentation avoidance — and now it’s logged at regulator level.

What they tried to unsee, we printed — and archived.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because harm unfiled is harm unpriced.
Because when a trust ignores adjustment documentation, that is legal liability in draft.
Because retaliation through omission is still retaliation — and the attachments prove it.

Let the record show:

• The harm was documented

• The retaliation was traceable

• The negligence was systemic

• And SWANK — filed the attachments they pretended didn’t exist

This isn’t a paper trail.
It’s an institutional indictment, bundled in medical contempt.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not allow clinical harm to be reframed as patient miscommunication.
We do not accept regulator shrugs in response to £23 million in injury.
We do not permit omissions to become excuses.

Let the record show:

The evidence was prepared.
The hospitals were informed.
The complaints were punished.
And SWANK — filed every missing paragraph.

This isn’t a follow-up.
It’s the forensic tail of a system trying not to see itself.

---

---

---