⟡ On the Enumeration of Correspondence as a Substitute for Authority ⟡
Filed: 9 January 2026
Reference: SWANK / RBKC / ADM–OBS
Summary: An administrative letter in which the lawful use of a complaints process is reframed as problematic by reference to quantity alone.
I. What Happened
A parent made repeated use of a complaints procedure.
The procedure existed for that purpose.
On 9 January 2026, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea responded by:
enumerating the number of emails received,
expressing institutional fatigue,
describing lawful correspondence as “bordering on harassment,”
declining to investigate a complaint at the requested stage, and
intimating that further correspondence might result in restrictions.
No finding was made.
No breach was identified.
No rule was cited.
The difficulty appears to have been numerical.
II. What the Document Establishes
The document establishes, with some clarity, that:
complaints were acknowledged as complaints,
none was alleged to be abusive in content,
repetition was treated as impropriety,
process was downgraded without adjudication, and
restriction was proposed as a management tool.
It further establishes that inconvenience was treated as misconduct, and that volume was permitted to do work normally reserved for law.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
SWANK logged this document for reasons of record.
Specifically, to preserve an example of a well-known administrative reflex:
the moment at which engagement becomes undesirable, and is therefore redescribed.
This entry does not allege malice.
It records method.
Future readers may find it instructive to observe how:
accountability quietly acquires conditions, and
complaints mechanisms become aspirational rather than operative.
IV. Applicable Standards & Observations
Public Law: Participation is not penalised by repetition
Complaints Governance: Stage allocation is not discretionary discipline
Equality Act 2010: Access adjustments are not suspended by irritation
Procedural Fairness: Threats are not findings
Logic: Counting is not reasoning
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not harassment.
This is not excess.
This is not unreasonable behaviour.
This is the ordinary use of a complaints system, later treated as though it were a favour that had been over-enjoyed.
SWANK therefore notes, without emphasis:
Weariness does not confer jurisdiction
Enumeration does not create authority
Consolidation does not resolve substance
And warning letters do not substitute for law
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is dated.
Every assertion is documentary.
Every inference is resisted.
This is not protest.
It is not advocacy.
It is not complaint.
It is filing.
Filed calmly.
Read literally.
Preserved for those who still believe that procedures mean what they say.
Because accountability does not become optional when it becomes repetitive.
And arithmetic, however diligently applied, remains arithmetic.
© 2026 SWANK London Ltd.
All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Unauthorised reproduction will be regarded as enthusiasm.