Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): NHS complaint

Showing posts with label NHS complaint. Show all posts

When Hospitals Harm: How GSTT Weaponised Silence, Safeguarding & Non-Response

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-06-02–PHSO–GSTT-INDECENT-PROTRACTED
Filed Under: NHS Delays, Disability Dismissals & Safeguarding Farce
From: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 2 June 2025

💼 Subject:

Formal Escalation – Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

Unresolved Complaint, Retaliatory Safeguarding & Clinical Incompetence

Dear Sir or Madam,

What follows is not a fresh complaint, but the remains of one—left to rot in the inboxes of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, untouched, unanswered, and untreated for over twelve weeks.

On 10 March 2025, I submitted a complaint concerning two medical incidents at St Thomas’ Hospital (4 November 2024 & 2 January 2025). Since then, the Trust has responded with prolonged silence—a delay not merely inconsiderate but procedurally unconscionable.

I now formally request that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman intervene, as the Trust appears unwilling or unable to locate its statutory obligations, let alone fulfil them.

🩺 Summary of Malpractice and Mayhem:

On both occasions, I arrived in respiratory distress (eosinophilic asthma).
I was denied proper treatment, and reasonable adjustments were pointedly refused—despite diagnosed communication disabilities (vocal cord dysfunction and muscle tension dysphonia).
My repeated, lawful requests for written communication were ignored, as if decorum were optional.
The Trust retaliated with a safeguarding referral so baseless it collapsed into farce, culminating in police interference at our hotel and harm to my children.

This sequence of events—a collision of incompetence, arrogance, and contempt—amounts to:

A breach of the Equality Act 2010
A direct affront to the NHS Constitution
And a clear failure to offer dignified, accessible, or lawful care

📎 Documentation (For Those Who Read):

I enclose my Written Communication Statement, which outlines the statutory basis and medical rationale for written-only engagement. It is also available online, for the benefit of institutions with a penchant for misplacing attachments:
🔗 Written Communication Statement

🕯 The Ask (Since It Must Be Spelled Out):

That the PHSO accept and investigate this complaint as a matter of urgency
That the Trust’s inertia and misconduct be examined for what they are: calculated institutional dereliction

This submission is issued under the insignia of SWANK London Ltd., a documentation authority intolerant of administrative melodrama masquerading as governance.

Yours in barbed civility,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🩺 NHS No: 6666666666
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

We Asked for Medical Care. They Sent Safeguarding. — The NHS Is Now Answerable to Parliament

⟡ Final NHS Complaint Escalated to PHSO: Discrimination and Retaliation Filed ⟡

“This isn’t about treatment delays. It’s about treatment as punishment — and the archive now includes Parliament’s ombudsman.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/PHSO/NHS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_PHSO_NHSComplaint_DisabilityDiscrimination_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
A formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) regarding NHS disability discrimination and retaliatory safeguarding abuse following lawful legal action. Submitted after exhausting all internal routes, with references to multiple regulators and an active judicial review.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a formal complaint to the PHSO citing:

Disability discrimination by:
- Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
- Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
- Pembridge Villas Surgery (Dr. Philip Reid)
Retaliatory safeguarding measures imposed after filing lawful complaints
Refusal to comply with a written-only adjustment, constituting medical harm
Obstruction of access to care, and abuse of safeguarding powers to neutralise legal risk

The complaint includes prior filings to:

GMC, LGSCO, ICB, ICO, and multiple NHS internal systems
A live civil claim for £23M
A Judicial Review in the High Court
A permanent public record at www.swankarchive.com

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That PHSO is now formally responsible for reviewing NHS-wide discrimination
That institutional actors have used care frameworks to punish dissent
That the complainant has followed every legitimate process
That the file is no longer private — it is published, cited, and publicly archived

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the NHS cannot claim ignorance once PHSO is notified.
Because safeguarding should not trigger retaliation when rights are exercised.
Because the denial of medical care isn’t a breakdown — it’s a strategy, now escalated to oversight.

This is not a review.
It’s a declaration of jurisdiction.
And if the ombudsman won’t act, SWANK will document that failure too.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept health care as conditional upon silence.
We do not accept safeguarding as a gag order.
We do not accept that harm ends when the ombudsman says "we’re not taking action."

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If care is denied in retaliation,
We archive the cause.
If oversight fails,
We publish the failure.
And if this complaint is ignored —
It will still be seen.

⟡ 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.

Still No Response. — The Silence That Becomes a Second Violation

⟡ Complaint Reminder, Equality Reminder, Clock Is Ticking ⟡

“I therefore request that a full written outcome be provided within 14 calendar days, as required.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/REMINDER-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Reminder_GSTT_EqualityAct_FinalResponseRequest.pdf
A formal reminder sent to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust. Filed under delay. Timed under discrimination. Notified to the Ombudsman. Clock included.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a formal reminder to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT), demanding a written outcome to a complaint filed on 10 March 2025.

That complaint concerned:

Medical negligence during respiratory crisis
Refusal to honour a written-only disability adjustment
A safeguarding referral filed after denial of care

Despite nearly three months of elapsed time, GSTT had provided no final response.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) had already opened a file — but the Trust remained mute.

This letter imposed a final 14-day deadline.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Four months of institutional silence after a discrimination complaint
Active breach of NHS resolution standards
Equality Act 2010 invoked — and ignored
PHSO formally engaged and referenced
Trust placed on record for procedural delay, not just care failure

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because after three months of silence, every additional day is now admissible.

This isn’t a gentle nudge.
It’s a legally binding timestamp.
It converts delay into liability.
It formalises what the Trust tried to outlast:
That silence is now misconduct.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a discrimination complaint can expire in an inbox.
We do not accept safeguarding as a punishment for asserting rights.
We do not accept that a medical crisis must be followed by a bureaucratic blackout.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
When they don’t respond, we escalate.
When they still don’t respond, we publish.
And when the clock runs out,
We file the delay as part of the 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.

We Need Your Permission to Investigate What You Already Told Us Happened

⟡ “We Cannot Investigate Without Your Signature — Even Though You Already Told Us Everything.” ⟡
NHS North West London ICB Requests Formal Consent to Proceed with Complaint Against Pembridge Villas Surgery

Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/FORM-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Form_NHS-NWL-ICB_ConsentToProcess_PembridgeComplaint.pdf
Summary: NHS NWL ICB issues a consent form for access to personal medical records in relation to a formal complaint against Pembridge Villas Surgery, confirming that the investigation is pending consent.

I. What Happened

On 27 May 2025, NHS North West London Integrated Care Board (ICB) issued a formal consent form regarding a complaint filed against Pembridge Villas Surgery. The form requests permission to:

– Share the complaint with Pembridge Villas Surgery
– Access medical records
– Receive a response from Pembridge containing personal data
– Share information with NHS England

It also warns that failure to return the form within 14 days may result in suspension of the complaint.

II. What the Record Establishes

• NHS NWL ICB has opened a complaint file regarding misconduct or failure by Pembridge Villas Surgery
• Progression is now conditional on formal consent, even though prior written testimony was already submitted
• Medical records will be exchanged between local provider and commissioning bodies
• This marks a jurisdictional handoff into internal NHS governance and response chains
• The complaint's legitimacy is not questioned — only its process is delayed pending consent

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because bureaucracies often act as if filing the complaint wasn’t enough — your trauma must be re-authorised.
Because this document proves the system cannot ignore the claim — it must now ask permission to process its own failings.
Because requiring another form is not evidence of caution — it’s evidence of institutional self-protection.

SWANK logs every procedural checkpoint as proof that the system didn’t forget — it stalled.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that truth must be consented to twice.
We do not accept that institutional accountability should hinge on duplicate paperwork.
We do not accept that failing to process a complaint due to admin formality is ever neutral.

This wasn’t just a form. It was a stall disguised as protocol.
And SWANK will timestamp every time the system paused itself.

⟡ 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.

What I Filed. Why I Survived. Who Lied.

⟡ I Told the Police I Would Not Be Quiet. And Then I Hit Publish. ⟡
“They sent me a template. I sent them a PDF.”

Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/MPS/EMAILS-12
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_EmailResponse_MetPolice_HospitalRetaliation_PublicPostingDeclaration.pdf
Parent’s direct reply to Metropolitan Police following hospital safeguarding retaliation. Document affirms refusal to engage with internal complaints processes and confirms public interest publication strategy.

I. What Happened

On 21 November 2024, following multiple incidents of NHS mistreatment and a retaliatory safeguarding report filed against her, the parent forwarded a message to the Metropolitan Police.

The email included:

A previous complaint about hospital bullying and safeguarding abuse
The police’s dismissive response, instructing her to raise concerns with the NHS directly
A firm declaration that she no longer trusts institutional pathways
A clear statement that she will be publicly archiving, posting, and reporting all misconduct for legal, social, and protective purposes

She stated plainly:

“I do not wish to raise a concern about a police officer. I wish to log a history of abuse so I can protect myself from retaliation.”

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That the police refused to act on NHS bullying reports related to disability and safeguarding retaliation
That the parent was not attempting to file a complaint — she was protecting herself in writing
That the public posting of documents is not a threat — it is a reasonable safeguard
That the parent had already attempted multiple internal avenues — and been ignored or harmed
That the record is now external, timestamped, and non-negotiable

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a police officer tells you to take your abuse report back to the people who abused you,
they’re not resolving the issue — they’re recycling it.

Because when you say:

“I’ve archived the pattern and will keep publishing it,”
that’s not aggression —
that’s survival.

You don’t owe these institutions silence.
You owe yourself the record.

And now, so do they.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Section 27
Victimisation through refusal to engage with safeguarding-related discrimination claims
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 3, 6, and 8
Denial of remedy, degrading treatment, refusal of process
Police Code of Ethics – Integrity and Respect
Failure to investigate or acknowledge serious allegations of institutional retaliation
Freedom of Expression – ECHR Article 10
Lawful right to archive and publish evidence of institutional abuse in the public interest

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a complaint.
It was a withdrawal of trust.

This wasn’t an escalation.
It was a declaration.

They closed the door.
So we built the archive.

And now, every reply is public.
Every silence is logged.
And every refusal gets a file name.

⟡ 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.

We Asked for Oxygen. They Sent a Social Worker. — When Access Became a Threat

⟡ Formal Complaint: When Care Refused to Communicate ⟡

“Refusal to provide written communication despite documented vocal limitations.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/CARE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Complaint_GSTT_UnsafeCare_DisabilityDiscrimination.pdf
A formal complaint submitted to the Care Quality Commission exposing clinical negligence and retaliatory safeguarding at St Thomas’ Hospital. A masterclass in bureaucratic cruelty under NHS letterhead.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a formal complaint to the Care Quality Commission. The subject: her mistreatment at St Thomas’ Hospital during emergency visits on 4 November 2024 and 2 January 2025.

The details are unambiguous:

She arrived in respiratory distress.
She requested written communication, per her documented disability.
The hospital refused.
She was left untreated.
A safeguarding referral was filed afterward — not to protect her, but to punish her.

The complaint was sent formally, copied to herself for record integrity, and references her publicly posted Written Communication Policy.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Refusal of urgent care for a disabled woman in respiratory crisis
Direct violation of the Equality Act 2010 — failure to make reasonable adjustments
Use of safeguarding as a retaliatory shield after clinical neglect
Institutionalised ableism: refusal to communicate is positioned as “concern”
Secondary trauma inflicted on children through false safeguarding escalation
Medical policy ignored, and documented disability treated as defiance

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this wasn’t poor service.
It was structural punishment of disability disguised as clinical neutrality.

This complaint transforms a “hospital incident” into evidence of systemic rot.
It shows how public health institutions — when confronted by difference — often retreat into bureaucratic retaliation, using safeguarding to silence, reframe, and punish the disabled.

When you ask for written communication and get a social worker instead,
that’s not a care pathway.
That’s a warning shot.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept hospitals that punish patients for asking to breathe.
We do not accept retaliation filed as “referral.”
We do not accept that safeguarding powers exist to deflect clinical liability.

SWANK London Ltd. declares:
When written policy is ignored,
When help is replaced by harm,
When silence is treated as threat —
We file the complaint.

And when the hospital doesn’t respond?
We log it in public, forever.

⟡ 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.

Racial Harm in the Waiting Room: What the NHS Failed to Intervene

⟡ SWANK NHS Racial Harm Archive ⟡

“The Receptionist Repeated the Slur.”
Filed: 24 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/SMH/RACE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-24_SWANK_SMH_Racial_Slur_Witness_Complaint.pdf

I. This Wasn’t De-escalation. It Was Institutional Echo.

This complaint documents a racial incident at St Mary’s Hospital witnessed by a patient in the Urgent Care Waiting Room on or around 18 March 2025.

At the centre of it:

A white woman accused of using a racial slur.
A Black woman visibly distressed and in tears.
A receptionist who repeated the slur aloud — in front of children, patients, and staff.
And no safeguarding response to the woman harmed.

This wasn’t an attempt to calm the situation.
It was an amplification of it — by the very institution meant to intervene.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That NHS staff:

Repeated a racial slur out loud in a public setting
Offered no support or trauma-informed care to the Black woman harmed
Failed to de-escalate, protect, or record the incident in any visible way
Allowed the accused party to proceed to her appointment unchallenged

That the harm was not:

Addressed
Acknowledged
Or institutionally managed

That racism — when witnessed in NHS spaces — is often allowed to sit beside you in the waiting room, unbothered.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because racial trauma in healthcare spaces is not hypothetical — it is routine and observable.
Because silence from staff is not neutrality — it is reinforcement.
Because institutional procedures often mirror the biases they’re meant to correct.

We filed this because:

The Black woman was left unsupported.
The receptionist normalized the harm.
The incident played out like background noise in a room that should’ve intervened.

Let the record show:

There was no apology.
There was no escalation pathway.
There was no training in evidence that day.

Only a witness — and now, a record.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept NHS environments where racial slurs are treated as disputable noise.
We do not permit receptionists to repeat trauma under the guise of clarification.
We do not excuse silence from professionals in moments of visible harm.

Let the record show:

The names were unspoken.
The slur was not.
The harm was institutional.
And SWANK — does not wait for consensus before calling it racism.

This wasn’t miscommunication.
It was racial violence, moderated by policy inaction.

⟡ 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.

What the NHS Missed — Filed, Bound, and Worth £23 Million

⟡ The Bundle They Pretended Not to Read ⟡

Filed: 1 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/ATTACHMENTS-BUNDLE
📎 Download PDF — 2025-03-01_SWANK_GMC_AttachmentsBundle_StThomas_Chelsea_DisabilityNeglect_SafeguardingEvidence_£23MClaim.pdf

I. What the NHS Missed — Filed, Bound, and Worth £23 Million

This supporting bundle accompanies the formal complaint submitted to the General Medical Council against:

Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

The documents within:

Confirm written disability adjustments issued and then ignored
Detail harm caused by denied treatment, forced verbal demands, and retaliatory escalation
Show medical events misrepresented — and then used against the patient
Evidence systemic failure not as mistake, but as coordinated indifference

They didn’t lose the paperwork.
They read it — and acted against it.

II. What Was Sent. What They Pretended Wasn’t There.

Included in the bundle:

Clinical diagnoses supporting written-only contact
Allergy documentation contradicted by treatment
Internal NHS notes minimising trauma and bypassing consent
A chronology of safeguarding escalation that followed every complaint filed

This isn’t "oversight."
It’s strategic documentation avoidance — and now it’s logged at regulator level.

What they tried to unsee, we printed — and archived.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because harm unfiled is harm unpriced.
Because when a trust ignores adjustment documentation, that is legal liability in draft.
Because retaliation through omission is still retaliation — and the attachments prove it.

Let the record show:

The harm was documented
The retaliation was traceable
The negligence was systemic
And SWANK — filed the attachments they pretended didn’t exist

This isn’t a paper trail.
It’s an institutional indictment, bundled in medical contempt.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not allow clinical harm to be reframed as patient miscommunication.
We do not accept regulator shrugs in response to £23 million in injury.
We do not permit omissions to become excuses.

Let the record show:

The evidence was prepared.
The hospitals were informed.
The complaints were punished.
And SWANK — filed every missing paragraph.

This isn’t a follow-up.
It’s the forensic tail of a system trying not to see itself.

💼 Subject:

Formal Escalation – Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

🩺 Summary of Malpractice and Mayhem:

📎 Documentation (For Those Who Read):

🕯 The Ask (Since It Must Be Spelled Out):

⟡ Final NHS Complaint Escalated to PHSO: Discrimination and Retaliation Filed ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

⟡ Complaint Reminder, Equality Reminder, Clock Is Ticking ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Record Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ Formal Complaint: When Care Refused to Communicate ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

I. This Wasn’t De-escalation. It Was Institutional Echo.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

⟡ The Bundle They Pretended Not to Read ⟡

I. What the NHS Missed — Filed, Bound, and Worth £23 Million

II. What Was Sent. What They Pretended Wasn’t There.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. SWANK’s Position

Documented Obsessions