Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Subject Access Request Filed for Removal Records — Delayed by Bureaucratic Conditions

---

⟡ “They Took the Children on June 23rd. I Filed a Subject Access Request on June 24th. Now They Want a Utility Bill.” ⟡
This Wasn’t About Verification. It Was About Delay — Because the Archive Asked for the Truth.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/SAR-REMOVAL-INQUIRY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_Westminster_SubjectAccess_RemovalRecords.pdf
Formal subject access request filed with Westminster City Council for disclosure of all documents, decisions, and communications regarding the removal of four U.S. citizen children from a disabled parent on 23 June 2025.

---

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Westminster City Council following the emergency removal of her four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — on 23 June. The request demanded disclosure of all emails, meeting minutes, officer names, risk assessments, police coordination, and post-event logs related to the action. The SAR was filed in writing, citing public interest, legal action, and international consular involvement.

Westminster responded with standard ID protocols and a disclaimer that the request will not be processed under FOIA 2000, despite containing matters of public administration. The file was reclassified as a DPA 2018 request — delaying statutory timelines until full ID and address verification is received.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Full request for documentation surrounding a child removal event was formally filed

• Westminster reclassified the request to avoid FOIA transparency requirements

• The council cited ID protocols despite known disability, legal status, and public interest

• No internal timeline was confirmed, and the burden of proof was returned to the victim

• The SAR now functions not only as a request — but as evidence of institutional evasion

This wasn’t a transparency mechanism. It was a bureaucracy loop dressed in GDPR language.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when the archive asks for receipts, the council reaches for red tape.
Because safeguarding actions can’t be secret while being funded publicly and protected institutionally.
Because “your case is active” is not a reason to withhold — it’s a reason to disclose immediately.
Because no parent should have to chase paperwork after losing children to an invisible order.
Because SWANK doesn’t just wait. It files. Logs. Publishes. Publicly.

---

IV. Violations

• Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–50 – Delay in fulfilling SAR without clarification or justified exemption

• Freedom of Information Act 2000, Section 1(1) – Improper rejection of public interest content under SAR pretext

• Article 15 GDPR – Right of access obstructed by reclassification tactics

• UNCRPD Article 13 – Barriers imposed on disabled litigant attempting to access institutional records

• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Access to family-related documentation denied post-removal

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t about safeguarding. It was about shielding institutional actors from lawful scrutiny.
This wasn’t document control. It was information delay weaponised against a disabled parent.
This wasn’t good governance. It was procedural insulation — and we filed it.

SWANK hereby archives this Subject Access Request not just as a demand — but as evidence of public body resistance to disclosure after unlawful child removal.
They will ask for proof of ID.
We will keep the proof of harm.

---

⟡ 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.

---

⟡ Chromatic v SWE: The Archive Demands a Copy of Itself ⟡

---

⟡ “You Had Time to Ignore My Complaints. Now You Have 30 Days to Disclose Them.” ⟡
Formal Subject Access Request to Social Work England demanding all records related to complaints against Kirsty Hornal

Filed: 8 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/SAR-HORNAL-COMPLAINT-RECORDS
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-08_SWANK_SARRequest_SWE_HornalComplaintsAndDeliberations.pdf
Subject Access Request demanding full disclosure of Social Work England’s records concerning complaints filed by Polly Chromatic against Kirsty Hornal

---

I. What Happened

On 8 April 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a formal Subject Access Request (SAR) to Social Work England (SWE)under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. The request demands:

• All internal documents, assessments, and decisions relating to complaints filed against Kirsty Hornal

• All emails or correspondence where Polly is named or referenced

• Full access to decision-making rationale, risk assessments, and refusal criteria

• Disclosure of the mechanisms used to determine why her complaints were not escalated

The SAR was submitted following SWE’s ongoing failure to investigate well-documented professional misconduct, and serves as a pre-litigation evidence sweep for both Judicial Review and regulator complaint escalation.

---

II. What the Request Establishes

• Regulatory opacity: SWE failed to provide procedural clarity regarding why Hornal’s misconduct was never investigated

• Documentation disparity: The archive is full — but SWE’s files have been withheld

• Data rights: Legal entitlement to know how the regulator discussed, dismissed, or delayed critical safeguarding concerns

• Institutional contradiction: Transparency is policy — except when the social worker is protected

• Power inversion: This SAR flips the dynamic — from subject to sovereign

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when regulators pretend not to see, you force them to read.
Because SWE can’t claim “insufficient grounds” while refusing to show their own grounds.
Because if they had time to ignore a year’s worth of documentation, they now have 30 days to account for that silence — in writing.

This SAR is not just an inquiry. It’s a jurisdictional demand.
And the archive will not wait politely.

---

IV. Violations (If Not Fulfilled)

• UK GDPR, Articles 12 & 15 – right to access personal data and obtain confirmation of processing

• Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–54 – noncompliance with subject access obligations

• Equality Act 2010, if refusal linked to disability status or complaint origin

• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – right to informational privacy and family protection

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that Social Work England gets to say “no case to answer” without showing what was asked.
We do not accept that silence is transparency.
We do not accept that safeguarding retaliation can be documented, and still dismissed, without scrutiny.

This is a records request.
It is also a countdown.
Day one has begun.

---

⟡ 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.