⟡ “I Asked for Help. They Filed It Under Spam.” ⟡
A formal disability access request sent to Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea requesting advocacy due to PTSD, eosinophilic asthma, and muscle dysphonia. Copied to legal counsel, private psychiatric care, and safeguarding officials. No reply. No access. No surprise.
Filed: 12 March 2024
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/ACCESS-02
📎 Download PDF – 2024-03-12_SWANK_Email_RBKC_AdvocacyAccessRequest_DisabilityDeclaration_SolicitorCC.pdf
A medical and legal rights-based request for advocacy assessment due to communication disability. Sent to RBKC customer services, CC’d to solicitor Simon O’Meara, Dr Harley Street Clinic, and WCC’s Kirsty Hornal. Contains clear summary of clinical conditions, written-only communication clause, and polite request for assistance. The institutions did not reply. But SWANK will.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic sent a calm, lawful, clinically-grounded message. It said:
“I suffer from PTSD, severe eosinophilic asthma, and muscle dysphonia.”
“It is painful and dangerous for me to speak verbally.”
“I am requesting an assessment for advocacy support.”
“Please communicate via email only. This is medically necessary.”
She copied:
Her solicitor, Simon O’Meara (Blackfords LLP)
Her doctor, Harley Street Clinic
Her safeguarding officer, Kirsty Hornal (WCC)
The request was:
Fully documented
Respectfully phrased
Sent to the correct department
A legally protected right
The reply?
Total silence.
II. What the Email Establishes
That disability access requests were submitted properly
That cross-agency professionals were notified
That the parent remained reasonable and proactive
That silence from RBKC was not a misfire — it was an institutional habit
That the request was archived before it could be ignored again
This isn’t just a request.
It’s an exhibit of deliberate non-accommodation.
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because institutions love to pretend you never asked. Because silence is easy to fake until the email is in a PDF. And because asking for advocacy when you can’t speak isn’t a favour — it’s a legal right. The fact that they didn’t reply doesn’t make it disappear. It makes it evidence.
SWANK archived this because:
It formalises a disability accommodation trail
It proves institutional awareness of verbal access needs
It shows legal counsel was engaged and copied
It foreshadows later violations with full transparency
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: No adjustments offered or assessed
• Section 27: Procedural inaction as discriminatory retaliation
• Section 149: Ignoring known access barriers in public authority contactHuman Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 8: Interference by omission, denying support for family lifeCare Act 2014 –
• Section 67: Failure to assess for independent advocacy despite vulnerabilityPublic Sector Duty Failures (RBKC) –
• Lack of response despite solicitor and clinician involvement
V. SWANK’s Position
You don’t get to pretend she never asked when you were copied in. You don’t get to treat silence like consent when the request was medically and legally grounded. And you don’t get to erase disability by ignoring the email — not when it’s already been filed.
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a foundational communication access request — denied by omission, preserved by design.
⟡ 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.