⟡ “We Will Send You the Password Shortly. Your Right to Access Depends on Our Schedule.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Disclosure. It Was a Countdown Clock. Filed With a Seven-Day Threat and Velvet Obstruction.
Filed: 30 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/SAR-ACCESSLIMITATION-LINKEXPIRY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-30_SWANK_SARNotice_RBKC_DataDisclosure15106629.pdf
Email from RBKC providing an expiring link to encrypted subject access disclosure with no immediate password, no accommodations, and a seven-day expiration barrier.
I. What Happened
At 09:55 on 30 May 2025, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea emailed Polly Chromatic in response to Subject Access Request Ref. 15106629.
The message contained:
A secure link to an encrypted message portal
A note stating: “we will send you a password shortly”
A warning that the link would expire in seven days
No disability access considerations
No downloadable documentation or printable option
No assurance of lawful format compliance
The password was promised but not included — turning access into a two-step digital scavenger hunt.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Access to personal data was delayed and constrained by artificial limits
Delivery relied on non-synchronous digital parts — link in one email, password by text
The method deliberately excluded those without dual-channel access
The seven-day expiry functions as a procedural threat
This is part of a broader institutional pattern of disclosure avoidance by friction
This wasn’t protection. It was performance architecture with an expiration timer.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the right to access your data shouldn’t depend on whether you check your text messages fast enough.
Because digital gates don’t protect privacy — they protect the institution from accountability.
Because this was not service delivery — it was sabotage via design.
Because we don’t just request records — we record the way they were denied.
IV. Violations
UK GDPR, Article 15 – Right of access obstructed by link expiration and delay
Data Protection Act 2018 – Lack of accessibility violates fairness and transparency
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – No accommodations for known access needs
UNCRPD Article 13 – No provision for accessible remedy for disabled person
ICO SAR Code of Practice – Discourages use of excessive security barriers
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t secure delivery. It was an escape room with jurisdictional consequence.
This wasn’t timely. It was delayed by design and expired by threat.
This wasn’t compliant. It was compliance cosplay — archived for the next tribunal.
SWANK hereby files this notice as the procedural mirror to the password-texted obstruction already logged.
The countdown began.
The access did not.
But the archive never expires.
⟡ 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 digital expiry deserves jurisdiction.
© 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.