Chromatic v RBKC (PC-123): On the Administrative Art of Dismissal

---

⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – ERIC WEDGE-BULL & BRETT TROYAN (RBKC CHILDREN’S SERVICES) ⟡

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/FORMAL-COMPLAINT/2025-EBT
Download PDF: 2025-05-23_Core_PC-123_RBKCChildrenServices_FormalComplaint_EricWedgeBull_BrettTroyan.pdf
Summary: A formal escalation to RBKC Children’s Services Complaints Team, alleging procedural retaliation, disability discrimination, and mismanagement by Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan. The letter demands proper escalation under the statutory Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006, rejecting the council’s premature closure and misrepresentation of the complaint as “resolved.”

---

I. What Happened

On 23 May 2025, following repeated violations of lawful communication adjustments and the mishandling of safeguarding-related correspondence, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) submitted this formal continuation and escalation of her unresolved complaint against Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan.

The complaint identified the following statutory breaches:
• Procedural retaliation against a disabled parent lawfully home-educating four children.
• Failure to respect written-only communication adjustments required under medical certification.
• Inappropriate tone and discriminatory remarks during periods of confirmed health crisis.
• Improper interference by senior officer Brett Troyan to prematurely dismiss or minimise the complaint.

The complaint further objected to RBKC’s unauthorised closure of the matter under the false claim of a “positive working relationship,” despite ongoing distress and unresolved procedural breaches.

---

II. What the Document Establishes

• That RBKC breached the statutory complaint handling process, refusing escalation to Stage 2 investigation.
• That Eric Wedge-Bull’s communications exhibited disability-based discrimination and tone-based misconduct.
• That Brett Troyan’s intervention was not oversight but obstruction.
• That systemic discrimination and retaliation now constitute a verifiable pattern across multiple agencies.
• That lawful home education and medical accommodation continue to be reframed as risk rather than right.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To document procedural malpractice disguised as “resolution.”
• To preserve proof of statutory non-compliance in RBKC’s complaint process.
• To show that disability rights and parental rights were jointly eroded through bureaucratic contempt.
• Because a letter to an ombudsman is also an act of jurisdictional performance art.

---

IV. Legal Framework

Statutes Cited
• Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 – procedural escalation duties.
• Equality Act 2010, ss. 15, 19, 20 – discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 6, 8, and 14 – denial of fair process, interference with family life, and discrimination.
• Freedom of Information Act 2000 – access to complaint-handling data.

Oversight Bodies Notified
• Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO)
• Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
• Social Work England (SWE)

---

V. SWANK’s Position

“Resolution without investigation is not closure — it is erasure.”

SWANK London Ltd. classifies RBKC’s conduct as statutory fraud through omission: the wilful conflation of complaint closure with complaint management.
The document functions as both grievance and affidavit — a linguistic injunction ensuring that “positive working relationship” will never again be misused as euphemism for coercion.

Every procedural omission, once recorded, becomes governance’s mirror.

---

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And dismissal deserves documentation.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.

I Escalated. Because They Pretended It Was Over.

---

⟡ SWANK Council Misconduct Ledger ⟡

“They Called It Closure. I Called It Retaliation.”
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/STAGE2/RETALIATION-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_RBKC_Complaint_EricWedgeBull_BrettTroyan_DisabilityRetaliation_Stage2.pdf

---

I. When They Close the Complaint, It’s Because the Complaint Was Accurate.

This formal Stage 2 escalation was filed with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), naming two officers — Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan — for their direct involvement in:

• Retaliatory handling of a disability complaint

• Breach of written communication adjustments

• Misrepresentation of safeguarding chronology

• Procedural closure without lawful resolution

They attempted to end a process that was only beginning.

We responded by escalating it into the archive.

---

II. What the Complaint Documents

• Officer Wedge-Bull and Officer Troyan:

  • Ignored clinical evidence

  • Mischaracterised safeguarding referrals

  • Silenced complaint progression by strategic inaction

• Their conduct included:

  • Failure to apply disability adjustments

  • Cooperative minimisation of harm

  • Obfuscation of RBKC safeguarding misconduct

• This was not a failure of communication.

It was a coordinated decision to terminate complaint visibility.

You asked for accountability.
They sent a closing statement.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because “Stage 2” is not an appeal.
It is an escalation into formality, visibility, and jurisdiction.

We filed this because:

• Complaints about misconduct are not resolved by silence

• Disability retaliation is not softened by tone

• Public officers do not get to declare their own exoneration

Let the record show:

• The original complaint was legitimate

• The closure was performative

• The response was escalation — and publication

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not tolerate complaints erased for convenience.
We do not accept closure without resolution.
We do not allow local authorities to disguise retaliation as “response.”

Let the record show:

The complaint was real.
The injury was clinical.
The officers were named.
And now — they are archived.

This wasn’t a conclusion.
It was a bureaucratic tantrum in paragraph form.

And SWANK has now added its reply — in public, in full, and in file.

---

⟡ 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.

---

When You Harass a Family Across Nations, Expect to Be BCC’d Into a Record.

---

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 11 February 2024
RE: CHROMATIC FAMILY DISCRIMINATION CLAIM — FORMALLY CIRCULATED.

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Cross-Agency Harassment · Discrimination Record · Council Abuse · NHS Complicity · Education Surveillance · Caribbean-UK Targeting · SWANK Ceasefire Dossier

---

To:

Samira Issa, Eric Wedge-Bull, Hardeep Kundi
Cc: NHS PALS, Council Complaints, School Administrators, Environmental Health, International Observers
Bcc: Literally Everyone Who Has Ever Doubted My Sovereignty

---

📝 THIS IS A BCC-LEVEL DECLARATION.

“Please see attached letter.”
“My children and I want to enjoy our lives in peace and are tired of being discriminated against and harassed.”

If you received this, it’s not a mistake.
It’s a final courtesy before international escalation.

---

👑 THIS CLAIM FORMALLY NAMES:

• Polly Chromatic (b. 16.01.1980)

• Regal Chromatic (b. 01.05.2009)

• Prerogative Chromatic (b. 03.01.2012)

• Kingdom Chromatic (b. 06.09.2014)

• Heir Chromatic (b. 30.04.2017)

The children bear sovereign names.
The treatment they’ve received belongs in colonial case law.

---

📎 ATTACHED AND ARCHIVED:

The original discrimination claim—served, submitted, and now engraved in the public record.

You had:

• Ample time to resolve this.

• Ample access to evidence.

• Ample warnings.

You chose surveillance over support.
Now you join the SWANK archive.

---

Polly Chromatic
Legal Archivist. Matriarch under siege. Sovereign of the Subject Line.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swankarchive.com
📧 director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Retaliation Recorded.

---

Eric and Jess Came Over. They Saw Ballet Shoes and Boxes. They Wrote a Book About Trauma (And Invented a Urine Bin).

---

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 12 July 2023
WE WERE NEVER ASSESSED. WE WERE OBSERVED AND JUDGED.
Also Titled: “Eric and Jess Came Over. They Saw Ballet Shoes and Boxes. They Wrote a Book About Trauma (And Invented a Urine Bin).”

Filed Under: Social Worker Surveillance, Narrative Fabrication, Health Disregard, Observation Bias, Fictional Evidence, RBKC Gaslighting, Legal Pre-Lit

---

🏷️ Subject: RBKC Initial Contact

Conducted by: Eric Wedge-Bull & Jessica Miller
Sanctioned by: Robert Young, Gatekeeper of the Imaginary

---

🧾 Allegation:

“We received a police report… cannabis… shouting… a bin filled with urine…”

🧻 Let’s pause here:

THERE WAS NO URINE BIN.

None.
Not present.
Not visible.
Not documented by anyone who attended the home.

But it made its way into the official record — because social work, in this case, prefers the literary genre of fictional hygiene horror over actual observation.

---

🎭 What Was Actually Observed:

• A family preparing for a move

• Boxes — naturally.

• Children: articulate, engaged, joyful

• No cannabis

• No signs of neglect

• No distress

• No “urine bin”

• Just a chronically ill mother doing her best while stalked by bureaucratic nonsense

---

👩‍👧‍👦 The Children:

• Described their mum as loving, warm, supportive

• Shared stories of ballet, gymnastics, coding, gardening, play

• One child said: “Mummy does everything for us.”

• Another said: “We hug her when she’s sad.”

No fear. No confusion. Just familial tenderness.
Which, of course, the system mistrusts.

---

📚 The Narrative Pivot:

“Three police referrals…”
“She gets angry…”
“There might be trauma…”
“She should probably get therapy…”
“And — again — there was allegedly a urine bin…”

Because when abuse can’t be found, the state will reach for metaphor.

---

🧠 Let Us Be Very Clear:

This was not an “assessment.”
It was speculative surveillance disguised as support.

And where truth didn’t cooperate, fiction filled the gaps.

---

🧾 Conclusion:

• No cannabis use by the mother

• No risk to the children

• No urine bin — just a lie printed in a PDF

• No distress — except the kind caused by being repeatedly watched, questioned, and gaslit by the very agencies assigned to “help”

---

Noelle Meline
Diagnosed. Documented. Defamed. Still standing.
📩 complaints@swankarchive.com

---

Labels: snobby, serious, SWANK tribunal, fictional evidence, made-up urine bin, Eric Wedge-Bull, Jessica Miller, RBKC misconduct, asthma ignored, trauma spectacle, home education bias, narrative distortion, legal escalation pending

Regulation 9 Exists for a Reason: Because Silence Has a Deadline, But Justice Does Not

---

⟡ “Too Late to Investigate? Or Too Damaging to Confront?” ⟡
Polly Chromatic Requests the Ombudsman Override RBKC’s Rejection of Historic Safeguarding Complaints

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-05
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Email_LGSCO_RequestOverride_RBKC_HistoricSafeguardingRefusal.pdf
Summary: Request for the LGSCO to override RBKC’s refusal to review historic safeguarding complaints under Regulation 9, citing medical barriers and repeated attempts to report misconduct.

---

I. What Happened

RBKC refused to investigate safeguarding complaints involving Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan, citing the passage of time. On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal request to the Ombudsman asking that they exercise their discretionary powers under Regulation 9 to consider these concerns in the public interest.

The request notes that prior complaints were never closed with consent, and that disability-related communication barriers made it impossible to meet RBKC’s procedural timeframes. The underlying issues involve discrimination, safeguarding breach, and retaliation.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC is shielding social worker misconduct behind administrative time limits
• Regulation 9 exists precisely to bypass such limits when public protection is at stake
• The complainant has repeatedly attempted to escalate these issues over time
• Communication disabilities were used as a procedural disqualifier
• Refusal to investigate becomes an institutional defence mechanism, not an accident
• LGSCO has a clear legal pathway to re-open these matters and examine them substantively

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the harm didn’t expire — so the complaint shouldn’t either.
Because Regulation 9 was written for exactly these moments: where injustice survives because of red tape.
Because Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan’s actions remain uninvestigated not because they were trivial — but because they were strategic.

SWANK records not just the complaint — but the refusal to bury it.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that time limits override institutional accountability.
We do not accept that barriers to verbal communication negate a person’s right to report harm.
We do not accept that safeguarding failures can be deleted by calendar year.

This wasn’t a new complaint. This was a refusal to forget.
And SWANK will archive every delay, every denial, and every system that mistook time for permission.

---

⟡ 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.

Regulation 9 Invoked to Protect the Accused — Not the Harmed

---

⟡ “Too Late to Investigate — But Not Too Late to Archive.” ⟡
RBKC Formally Refuses to Investigate Complaint Against Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan, Citing Regulation 9

Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-07
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Regulation9Refusal_WedgeBull_Troyan.pdf
Summary: RBKC cites Regulation 9 to reject a formal complaint against social workers Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan, despite medical barriers and previously denied closure.

---

I. What Happened

On 23 May 2025, you submitted a formal complaint regarding misconduct by Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan. RBKC responded on 27 May 2025, stating that:

– The matters occurred more than 12 months ago
– The case is therefore “out of time” under Regulation 9
– You failed (allegedly) to justify why the complaint was not submitted sooner
– No further investigation will be undertaken
– They acknowledge you’ve copied in the Local Government Ombudsman

RBKC’s response does not acknowledge your previously submitted complaints, your lack of consent to closure, or your disability-based communication barriers.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC is invoking Regulation 9 as a shield, despite prior contact and known barriers
• Procedural timelines are used to erase misconduct, not to protect complainants
• Safeguarding professionals remain uninvestigated due to bureaucratic thresholds
• There is no attempt to address retaliation, harassment, or discriminatory behaviour
• You are referred to the LGSCO — effectively forced to escalate because of administrative avoidance

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when institutions say “too late,” they’re not talking about the harm — they’re talking about the paperwork.
Because Regulation 9 is meant to protect administrators, not survivors.
Because procedural fencing should never override disability access, trauma timelines, or prior mismanagement.

SWANK documents every refusal disguised as a rule — and every silence built on timing.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that Regulation 9 can be used to silence retaliatory complaints.
We do not accept that prior submission without consent to closure can be erased.
We do not accept that safeguarding failures become acceptable after 365 days.

This wasn’t a time limit. It was an institutional escape hatch.
And SWANK will record every refusal that dared to call itself lawful.

---

⟡ 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 Email Tone Was Warm. The Intent Was Surveillance.

---

⟡ SWANK Pretext Surveillance Archive – RBKC ⟡
“They Said They Were Here to Support. They Meant: Observe.”
Filed: 17 November 2022
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EARLY-SAFEGUARDING-TIMELINE-INIT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2022-11-17_SWANK_RBKC_EarlySafeguarding_Timeline_InitialSubmission.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic

---

I. The First Performance: Concern Disguised as Support

This document contains the earliest recorded interactions with RBKC Family Services — specifically Eric Wedge-Bull and Milena Abdula-Gomes — during a period of severe respiratory illness, disability instability, and family medical crisis.

They claimed to be supportive.

They called it “monitoring.”

What they practiced was tone-regulated intrusion — framed in emails that made institutional presence sound like assistance, and implied safeguarding without ever saying it out loud.

This was not child protection.
It was the soft launch of procedural theatre.

---

II. What the Timeline Establishes

• That there was no formal safeguarding threshold invoked — only “concern”

• That the parent’s serious respiratory illness was met with strategic calm, not urgency

• That Eric Wedge-Bull used vague de-escalation language while collecting

• That Milena Abdula-Gomes responded with “reassurance” instead of clarity

The child wasn’t at risk.
But the parent was visibly disabled and articulate — and thus, threatening to the system’s narrative control.

So they replied in fragments, in courtesy, and in surveillance-by-email.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because “just checking in” is not neutral when it comes from the state.
Because “informal” visits often predate formal violations.
Because we don’t permit public bodies to embed escalation in politeness.

We filed this because:

• The system never named a threshold, but recorded as though one had been met

• “Support” was never clinically grounded — it was narratively positioned

• No social worker responded to medical reports as medical — only as context to manage

Let the record show:

They wrote in first names and signed-off with warmth.
But every sentence prepared a procedural alibi.
And the parent — documented every line.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept “checking in” as a cover for pre-safeguarding surveillance.
We do not accept warm tone in place of lawful justification.
We do not accept politeness where clarity is required by statute.

Let the record show:

Their emails were vague.
The parent was precise.
Their process was passive.
The timeline — is now permanent.

This wasn’t early support.
It was the dress rehearsal for escalation —
and SWANK caught it before the curtain rose.

---

⟡ 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.