No Assessment Because No One Adjusted — And Kirsty Was CC’d

---

⟡ “No One Was Smart Enough to Make an Adjustment — So We Filed.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Forwards Health-Based Communication Barrier to Kirsty Hornal and Legal Counsel — Revealing Early Ignorance of Disability Adjustments

Filed: 27 December 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-04
📎 Download PDF – 2024-12-27_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_ReasonableAdjustment_RefusalToAccommodate.pdf
Summary: Forwarded email trail showing Polly Chromatic explaining her verbal disability to Westminster and Harley Street clinicians, with Kirsty Hornal copied — establishing early awareness of adjustments.

---

I. What Happened

On 27 December 2024, Polly Chromatic forwarded an email thread to Nannette Nicholson showing:

– That on 10 December 2024, she requested a refund from Harley Street Mental Health due to adjustment refusal
– That she clearly disclosed her disability, stating:

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult... I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”
– That Kirsty Hornal was cc’d
– That the assessment was blocked due to reception staff refusing to relay written information to a psychiatrist
– That legal counsel Laura Savage (Merali Beedle) was also included in the thread

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• Kirsty Hornal was given early direct knowledge of Polly’s verbal communication disability
• The adjustment was requested in clear, plain language
• Psychiatric harm and care obstruction were communicated and documented
• No safeguarding support or accommodation followed — only escalation
• Westminster can no longer claim lack of notice regarding disability needs

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because saying “I cannot speak” is a medical disclosure — not a rhetorical inconvenience.
Because forwarding this to Kirsty and Laura Savage proved the system knew — and still failed.
Because when adjustments are ignored, the archive must not be.

SWANK logs the request that came before the retaliation. Every time.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that disability must be restated after its first refusal.
We do not accept that psychiatric care can be denied for being written.
We do not accept that professionals can read this and claim they didn’t know.

This wasn’t an email. It was a disability disclosure.
And SWANK will file it until the silence is struck from the record.

---

⟡ 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.

The Refusal to Read Is Institutional

---

⟡ “I've Been Saying the Same Thing for Ten Years and No One Wants to Read or Listen” ⟡
A Multi-Agency Notification of Disability That Was Met With Silence — and Then Retaliation

Filed: 10 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/MULTIAGENCY/DISABILITY-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-10_SWANK_Email_DisabilityNotifications_MultiAgency.pdf
Multi-recipient disability disclosure covering panic disorder, eosinophilic asthma, and muscle dysphonia, sent as written-only adjustment notice and medical accommodation request.

---

I. What Happened

On 10 January 2025, Polly Chromatic (then using her legal name) sent multiple formal notifications of disability to representatives at RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services, including Glen Peache, Kirsty Hornal, Sarah Newman, and others.

These notices were sent via email, citing documented medical conditions — eosinophilic asthma, muscle dysphonia, and panic disorder — alongside clear communication adjustment requests. The messages explicitly stated that verbal contact was not possible and that email-only interactions were essential for health and safety.

Despite being copied to solicitors, school contacts, and a GP, no adjustment was made, and the retaliation escalated.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• 📛 Procedural Breach: Multiple agencies failed to respond to disability notifications as formal medical adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

• 💥 Human Impact: Ongoing panic attacks, vocal strain, and exacerbation of chronic respiratory illness due to forced verbal interaction and procedural hostility.

• 🔇 Power Dynamics: The refusal to accommodate written-only communication undermined legal capacity, dignity, and access.

• 🏛 Institutional Failure: The messages were treated as ignorable personal disclosures, not statutory triggers for safeguarding the sender’s rights.

• ❌ Unacceptable: Treating medical information from a vulnerable parent as optional reading — and then escalating safeguarding procedures based on their distress.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This is the moment every subsequent abuse of process became premeditated.

The agencies involved had full, detailed, medically grounded knowledge of Polly Chromatic’s conditions — and chose to ignore it. This email thread is the prima facie evidence of system-wide dereliction: a refusal to understand, adapt, or comply.

It also demonstrates how “reasonable adjustment” is treated as a courtesy, not a legal requirement.
SWANK logs it because it is proof that everything that followed — including court manipulation, voice strain, and retaliatory safeguarding — was done in writing, after being warned.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a failure to notice.
It was a decision to dehumanise through silence.

⟡ We do not accept that a parent’s health notice should be read as an inconvenience.
⟡ We do not accept that trauma is “too long to read.”
⟡ We will document every unread email that preceded your unlawful escalation.

---

⟡ 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.