⟡ “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.