⟡ “We Cannot Investigate Without Your Signature — Even Though You Already Told Us Everything.” ⟡
NHS North West London ICB Requests Formal Consent to Proceed with Complaint Against Pembridge Villas Surgery
Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/FORM-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Form_NHS-NWL-ICB_ConsentToProcess_PembridgeComplaint.pdf
Summary: NHS NWL ICB issues a consent form for access to personal medical records in relation to a formal complaint against Pembridge Villas Surgery, confirming that the investigation is pending consent.
I. What Happened
On 27 May 2025, NHS North West London Integrated Care Board (ICB) issued a formal consent form regarding a complaint filed against Pembridge Villas Surgery. The form requests permission to:
– Share the complaint with Pembridge Villas Surgery
– Access medical records
– Receive a response from Pembridge containing personal data
– Share information with NHS England
It also warns that failure to return the form within 14 days may result in suspension of the complaint.
II. What the Record Establishes
• NHS NWL ICB has opened a complaint file regarding misconduct or failure by Pembridge Villas Surgery
• Progression is now conditional on formal consent, even though prior written testimony was already submitted
• Medical records will be exchanged between local provider and commissioning bodies
• This marks a jurisdictional handoff into internal NHS governance and response chains
• The complaint's legitimacy is not questioned — only its process is delayed pending consent
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because bureaucracies often act as if filing the complaint wasn’t enough — your trauma must be re-authorised.
Because this document proves the system cannot ignore the claim — it must now ask permission to process its own failings.
Because requiring another form is not evidence of caution — it’s evidence of institutional self-protection.
SWANK logs every procedural checkpoint as proof that the system didn’t forget — it stalled.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that truth must be consented to twice.
We do not accept that institutional accountability should hinge on duplicate paperwork.
We do not accept that failing to process a complaint due to admin formality is ever neutral.
This wasn’t just a form. It was a stall disguised as protocol.
And SWANK will timestamp every time the system paused itself.
⟡ 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.