⟡ On the Mischaracterisation of Complaint as Harassment ⟡
Filed: 9 January 2026
Reference: SWANK / RBKC / PROCEDURAL–COMPLAINTS
Download PDF: 2026-01-09_PC12132_01Core_Procedural_IntimidatoryComplaintHandling.pdf
Summary: A formal response from a local authority reframing lawful complaint activity as harassment and proposing contact restriction.
I. What Happened
On 9 January 2026, the Customer Relationship team of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea issued a written response to Polly Chromatic acknowledging receipt of multiple complaints submitted between 3 December 2025 and 9 January 2026.
The response:
quantified the number of complaints submitted,
characterised the volume of correspondence as “not sustainable” and “bordering on harassment,”
declined to progress a safeguarding-related complaint to Stage 2,
and warned that measures may be imposed to limit future contact with the council.
This communication was issued in the context of ongoing family proceedings and contemporaneous safeguarding concerns.
II. What the Document Establishes
This document establishes, on the authority’s own wording:
That lawful complaint activity was reframed as a resource-management problem
That volume of correspondence was treated as grounds for procedural limitation
That escalation rights under the complaints procedure were unilaterally curtailed
That prospective restriction of contact was introduced as a compliance mechanism
That safeguarding-related complaints were downgraded without investigation
The record is explicit, contemporaneous, and unambiguous.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
SWANK logged this entry because it exemplifies a recognisable administrative pattern:
documentation treated as disruption,
accountability reframed as burden,
and complaint procedures used defensively rather than investigatively.
This entry functions as:
procedural evidence,
pattern confirmation,
and a reference point for oversight bodies examining retaliatory complaint handling.
IV. Applicable Standards & Violations
Local Authority Complaints Procedure — failure to apply escalation criteria lawfully
Public law principles — procedural fairness and legitimate expectation
Safeguarding duties — diminished by administrative convenience
Equality Act 2010 / PSED — risk of indirect discrimination through contact restriction
Threatening contact limitation in response to protected complaint activity raises proportionality and lawfulness concerns.
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not harassment.
This is record-keeping.
Accordingly:
We do not accept the reframing of complaints as misuse of resources.
We reject the implication that safeguarding concerns become illegitimate by repetition.
We will document every instance in which process is deployed to suppress scrutiny.
⟡ 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 intimidation deserves daylight.