⟡ Formal GP Complaint Filed with North West London ICB ⟡
“When a GP denies medical adjustments, falsifies records, and triggers safeguarding in response — it’s not care. It’s collusion.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/ICB/GP-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_ICB_Complaint_PembridgeVillas_DisabilityDiscrimination_AdjustmentBreach.pdf
A formal complaint to North West London Integrated Care Board regarding disability discrimination and clinical retaliation by Dr. Philip Reid of Pembridge Villas Surgery. The complaint cites failure to honour medical adjustments, diagnostic manipulation, and complicity in multi-agency safeguarding abuse.
I. What Happened
On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, on behalf of Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett, submitted a complaint to the North West London ICB, asserting:
Refusal to implement a written-only medical adjustment, in violation of UK law
Clinical mischaracterisation of eosinophilic asthma and muscle dysphonia
Contribution to retaliatory safeguarding escalation after legal filings
Violation of medical ethics, disability law, and GP contractual duties
Harm to a disabled mother and four children through access obstruction and systemic deferral
This filing follows:
Direct complaints to the GMC, EHRC, NHS complaints system, ICO, and PHSO
A £23M civil claim and active Judicial Review
A documented pattern of primary care misuse as retaliatory administration
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That primary care is not exempt from scrutiny — especially when it harms by omission
That GPs can become instruments of retaliation when clinical negligence serves institutional goals
That written adjustments are not optional — and denial is a breach, not a misunderstanding
That the ICB is now on formal notice of the harm — and of its legal significance
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because GP collusion often hides behind slow paperwork and passive notes.
Because what happened was not an error — it was a pattern.
Because when your surgery becomes a gatekeeper to harm, you file the lock, the key, and the one who handed it over.
This isn’t a patient grievance.
It’s a legal record.
And now, it’s part of the archive.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept GP practices that obscure harm under clinical softness.
We do not accept the denial of access disguised as administrative inertia.
We do not accept that medical retaliation should go unchallenged because it’s local.
SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If your doctor joins the retaliation,
We name them.
If your adjustment is ignored,
We file the breach.
And if safeguarding is triggered from a consultation,
We archive the prescription — for 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.