⟡ We Filed the Law. They Filed a Retaliation. ⟡
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/LGA1989/MO-RBKC-WCC
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_RBKC_WCC_MonitoringOfficer_Complaint_DisabilityAbuse_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
I. This Is Not a Whinge. It Is a Statutory Intervention.
Filed under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, this letter was submitted to:
The Monitoring Officer of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)
The Monitoring Officer of Westminster City Council (WCC)
It outlines:
Disability discrimination
Safeguarding retaliation
Misuse of statutory thresholds
Institutional refusal to comply with written-only communication adjustments
What they called “procedure,”
we named — and filed — as statutory breach.
II. When the Adjustment Itself Becomes the Offence
At issue:
The Director’s medical exemption from verbal communication
A cascade of retaliatory emails, safeguarding threats, and escalation attempts
Councils ignoring lawful adjustments to manufacture non-compliance
The absurdity of equating silence with risk when the silence was a protected adjustment
This isn’t negligence.
It’s orchestrated procedural cruelty.
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because the Monitoring Officer is not decoration — they are statutory gatekeeper to lawful governance.
Because institutional retaliation cannot be disguised as support.
Because what happened here is not “confusion.” It is weaponised procedure.
Let the record show:
The law was cited
The misconduct was named
The retaliation was logged
And SWANK — filed it not to complain, but to assert jurisdiction
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not believe that disability protections are optional.
We do not permit councils to repurpose silence as suspicion.
We do not treat safeguarding misuse as administrative inconvenience.
Let the record show:
The abuse was documented.
The threshold was breached.
The retaliation was overt.
And SWANK — escalated with statute in hand.
This is not correspondence.
This is a structural ceasefire demand — backed by legislation.