A Complaint Was Filed. Silence Was Returned.

---

⟡ They Never Replied. So We Escalated to Parliament. ⟡
“The complaints weren’t mishandled. They were ignored entirely.”

Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PHSO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-17_SWANK_PHSOComplaint_Westminster_ComplaintProcessFailureAndNonResponse.pdf
Formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman citing Westminster City Council’s failure to respond to any statutory complaint, audit notice, or legal demand issued between May and June 2025.

---

I. What Happened

Between 22 May and 16 June 2025, Westminster Children’s Services was sent no fewer than four written legal notices and formal complaints, each documenting severe procedural breaches, disability discrimination, and misuse of safeguarding protocols.

Westminster replied to none of them.

No acknowledgement.
No holding letter.
No indication that a complaint process even existed.

Their complaints process wasn’t overwhelmed.
It was absent.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That Westminster’s internal complaint system failed at the first step: acknowledgement

• That no written response was provided to:

  • Legal demand for disability adjustment

  • Cease and desist for safeguarding retaliation

  • Procedural review following a supervision threat

  • Statutory audit follow-up

• That internal remedies were actively denied, not simply delayed

• That the Council’s silence prevented access to lawful accountability

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you send four formal complaints — and no one answers —
That’s not a service failure.
That’s administrative abandonment.

Because “waiting for a reply” becomes complicity if the system is designed not to respond.

And because when a council ignores legal notices under audit,
they forfeit the right to handle complaints internally.

So we referred them externally. To Parliament.

---

IV. Violations

• Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009

  • Failure to acknowledge or process complaints within reasonable time

• Equality Act 2010 – Section 20

  • Disability adjustment requests ignored

• Children Act 1989 – Safeguarding protocol breach

  • Complaint regarding misuse of procedures left unaddressed

• Human Rights Act – Article 6 and 8

  • Denial of fair process and personal dignity

---

V. SWANK’s Position

They didn't mishandle the complaint.

They refused to touch it.

And when a complaint goes unacknowledged — across departments, teams, and deadlines —
That’s not an error. That’s a wall.

So we did what anyone under audit would do.

We broke through it.

---

⟡ 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.

Complaint Closed. Mold Unresolved. Discrimination Unacknowledged.

---

⟡ “You Can Escalate Now. We’re Done Listening.” ⟡
RBKC Formally Closes Housing Complaint 12060761 Without Remediation — Forcing Escalation to the Ombudsman

Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-06
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Stage2ComplaintClosure_HousingRef12060761.pdf
Summary: RBKC confirms final response to a housing complaint involving unsafe conditions and discrimination, referring the matter to the LGSCO with no resolution.

---

I. What Happened

On 27 May 2025, RBKC Housing emailed Polly Chromatic (Noelle Meline) to close formal complaint Ref: 12060761, concerning:

– Unsafe housing at 37 Elgin Crescent
– Disability discrimination
– Failure of Environmental Health
– Officer negligence and procedural retaliation

The email acknowledges the case closure and redirects the complainant to the Local Government Ombudsman for further action. No resolution or acknowledgment of substantive allegations is included.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC concluded its internal process without resolving the complaint
• No factual rebuttal or remedy was offered
• The burden now shifts to the complainant to escalate to the Ombudsman
• The referral is standardised — but the original harm is left unaddressed
• This closure reinforces the pattern of institutional evasion through procedural completion

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how systems close files without fixing harm.
Because this letter ends one jurisdiction and begins another — and both must be archived.
Because what isn’t said in the response is as damning as what is: no denial, no resolution, no accountability.

SWANK documents closure events as turning points — not endpoints.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that structural harm can be concluded administratively.
We do not accept that internal policy processes equal justice.
We do not accept that “you may now escalate” is a substitute for action.

This wasn’t a conclusion. This was a referral of responsibility.
And SWANK will archive every door they shut — before we knock on the next one.

---

⟡ 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.

Closed Locally, Filed Nationally: When SWANK Picks Up What RBKC Drops

---

⟡ “They Closed the Complaint — Not the Mould.” ⟡
RBKC Refused to Investigate Housing Hazards and Disability Failures — So SWANK Took It to the Ombudsman

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-04
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Email_LGSCO_RBKCComplaintReferral_UnsafeHousingRetaliation.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint referral to the Ombudsman following RBKC’s inadequate Stage 2 response on housing conditions, disability discrimination, and procedural abuse.

---

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal referral to the LGSCO following the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s failure to resolve housing complaint Ref: 12060761. The initial complaint was lodged earlier in 2025 and escalated on 20 May. RBKC issued a final reply on 27 May 2025 — which ignored core issues:

– Hazardous housing conditions at 37 Elgin Crescent
– Failure to act by Environmental Health
– Ignored requests for disability adjustments
– Evidence of retaliation following complaints
– Negligence by officer Hardeep Kundi

The letter confirms medical harm to the sender and children, and states this matter is also part of an active civil claim.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC failed to fulfil its statutory housing and safeguarding duties
• Environmental Health declined to act despite clear hazards
• Reasonable adjustment duties under the Equality Act 2010 were ignored
• The complaint trail shows a pattern of procedural retaliation
• Council processes collapsed at Stage 2, requiring ombudsman escalation
• The issue is not just administrative — it’s structural negligence resulting in medical harm

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this letter marks the official transition from local denial to national oversight.
Because when housing is hazardous and the council’s final word is deflection, the archive must become a megaphone.
Because it’s not just about mould or negligence — it’s about the machinery that protects both.

SWANK logs the chain of evasion and the exact moment the system was formally told: You do not close this. We escalate it.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that disability-related housing complaints can be closed without action.
We do not accept that safeguarding failures disappear once a reply is issued.
We do not accept that the Ombudsman is a last resort — they are an evidentiary witness.

This wasn’t a referral. It was an audit handoff.
And SWANK will retain every submission the state hoped would be lost in escalation.

---

⟡ 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.

---

🦚 Formal Complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman – Concerning RBKC’s Refusal to Investigate Disability Discrimination and Social Worker Misconduct (Ref: 15083377)

Filed under the documentation of bureaucratic evasion, safeguarding malpractice, and the erosion of accessible public care.

---

30 March 2025
To:
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
Website: www.lgo.org.uk

Subject: Formal Complaint – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s Refusal to Investigate Disability Discrimination and Social Worker Misconduct (Ref: 15083377)

---

📜 Dear Sir or Madam,

I write not merely as a complainant,

but as a citizen regrettably well-versed in chasing accountability through the gilded labyrinth of institutional apathy.

I request that the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman formally investigate the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) for its refusal to investigate multiple allegations of professional misconduct, disability discrimination, and procedural failure, as outlined in my submission of 24 March 2025 (Ref: 15083377).

---

📚 I. Context: A Chronicle of Avoidance in Five Acts

The complaint concerns a series of episodes involving RBKC social workers, whose conduct ranged from bizarre to medically dangerous, including:

• Mr. Earl Bullhead’s aggressive and medically harmful questioning of my children, resulting in asthma attacks requiring immediate intervention.

• Ms. Jane Mountain’s fabrication of allegations — including the claim that I “yell at my children” —

A physical impossibility given my eosinophilic asthma and muscle tension dysphonia.

• A three-month embargo on my access to the assessment report, preventing any timely challenge to embedded inaccuracies.

• The repeated denial of my reasonable adjustments, specifically the right to written-only communication.

• The February 2024 home visit by Ms. Sally Silly, accompanied unlawfully by her unvetted mother, escalating the case against me for the “offence” of having a disability that impedes verbal speech under duress.

Each episode, distinct in detail, unified in disregard.

---

📜 II. RBKC’s Refusal to Investigate: Bureaucracy as Theatre

RBKC refused to investigate, citing:

1. That events occurred over 12 months ago;

2. That the case had been transferred to Westminster in March 2024.

These defences are:

• Factually inaccurate — RBKC’s jurisdiction plainly extended into 2024;

• Procedurally indefensible — The effects of the misconduct remain ongoing.

Moreover:

• My repeated attempts to raise concerns were either ignored or met with bureaucratic stonewalling;

• RBKC systematically failed to accommodate my disability, violating both the Equality Act 2010 and LGO standards.

Thus, the burden of remedy now falls to the Ombudsman.

---

📚 III. Request for Formal Review by the Ombudsman

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Ombudsman:

• Undertake a comprehensive investigation of RBKC’s failures, with full consideration of submitted evidence.

• Determine whether RBKC breached:

  • The Equality Act 2010;

  • The Children Act 1989;

  • The Local Government Act 1974.

• Ascertain whether RBKC’s refusal to investigate constitutes maladministration, particularly given the disability-related barriers I face.

• Examine RBKC’s failure to provide a lawful, accessible, and non-discriminatory complaints process.

---

📜 IV. Supporting Documentation Attached: A Compendium of the Ignored

• My formal complaint to RBKC (24 March 2025);

• RBKC’s rejections (25 & 27 March 2025);

• My rebuttal (26 March 2025);

• Email correspondence with RBKC (2023–2025);

• Medical evidence (available upon request);

• Video documentation (YouTube links available upon request).

---

📬 Closing Request

I await your confirmation of receipt and trust that your office will afford this matter the level of scrutiny and seriousness

so markedly absent from the borough’s own response.

---

📜 Yours sincerely,

With documented precision and constitutional insistence,
Polly

---

---

🦚 Formal Complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman – Concerning Prolonged Negligence, Discrimination, and Dereliction of Duty by Westminster and RBKC Authorities

Filed under the documentation of systemic abdication, legislative breach, and the institutional choreography of studied indifference.

---

10 March 2025
To:
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) Complaints Team
PO Box 4771, Coventry, CV4 0EH

Subject: Formal Complaint – Prolonged Negligence, Discrimination, and Dereliction of Duty by Westminster and RBKC Authorities

---

📜 Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to submit a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) concerning the sustained, systemic failure of statutory duty by:

• Westminster City Council; and

• The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).

This complaint is not born of isolated missteps,

but the cumulative consequence of institutionalised inertia, legislative breach, and administrative evasion.

---

📚 1. Summary of Local Authority Failings – A Catalogue of Institutional Shrugs

The failures herein described are not abstract.
They have materially impacted:

• My health;

• My finances;

• My safety;

• And my basic dignity.

Specifically:

• Social Services (Westminster and RBKC) engaged in discriminatory interventions, wilfully disregarding my documented disabilities, and failing to meet their legal obligations to provide reasonable adjustments.

• RBKC Environmental Health neglected to act upon explicit reports of toxic sewer gas exposure in my former residence, endangering myself and my children.

• Westminster City Council demonstrated a pattern of inaction, leaving qualifying conditions under the Equality Act 2010 unaddressed.

This was not isolated error.
It was governance by strategic neglect.

---

📜 2. Legal Breaches – Decorated in Policy, Deficient in Practice

The conduct of these local authorities constitutes direct breaches of:

• The Local Government Act 1974 – Mandating the fair and timely handling of public complaints;

• The Equality Act 2010 (Section 20) – Requiring public bodies to implement reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals;

• The Housing Act 2004 – Obliging councils to address serious hazards impacting health and wellbeing.

At every juncture:

Obligation was shelved; policy became performance; and duty was displaced onto the vulnerable.

---

📚 3. Consequences of Negligence – Damage Dressed in Delay

As a direct and foreseeable result of these failures, I have suffered:

• Severe, avoidable health deterioration due to prolonged environmental exposure;

• Intrusive, medically harmful social work interventions, ignoring established medical requirements for communication adaptations;

• Financial hardship, after being forced to relocate from unsafe housing without compensation, assistance, or acknowledgment.

When protection became inconvenient, the burden was simply transferred — to me and my children.

---

📜 4. Actions Requested of the LGO – A Modest Proposal for Redress and Reform

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Ombudsman:

1. Initiate a full investigation into systemic failures by RBKC and Westminster City Council across Social Services and Environmental Health.

2. Mandate corrective action, including the review of safeguarding and housing procedures for disabled service users.

3. Require the implementation of disability awareness training across all relevant departments, to counteract persistent breaches of the Equality Act 2010.

4. Recommend redress, including financial compensation, where hardship and harm have been demonstrably caused by council negligence.

---

📬 5. Next Steps – Timeframes and Intentions

I request:

• A written acknowledgment of receipt;

• A timeline detailing how this complaint will be processed,

• Within 28 days.

Should a satisfactory resolution not be achieved,
I reserve the right to pursue formal legal action for:

• Breaches of the Equality Act 2010;

• Local authority negligence;

• Failure to uphold statutory duties under housing and social care legislation.

---

Kindly confirm receipt and advise which supporting documentation is required to advance this complaint.

---

📜 Yours,

With due formality and an ever-expanding archive of receipts,
Polly

---

---

🦚 Formal Complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman – Concerning the Conduct of Ms. Jane Mountain and RBKC’s Institutional Refusal to Investigate

Filed under the documentation of professional malpractice, disability discrimination, and the solemn burial of procedural rights.

---

4 May 2025
To:
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding the Conduct of Ms Jane Mountain – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)

---

📜 Dear Sir or Madam,

I submit, with due formality, this complaint concerning Ms. Jane Mountain,
a social worker employed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).

This complaint addresses:

• Ms. Mountain’s own misconduct,

• The Council’s refusal to investigate,

• And the broader pattern of institutional evasion at RBKC.

---

📚 I. Background: The Visit, the Promise, the Vanishing Act

In July 2023, Ms. Mountain attended my home alongside Mr. Earl Bullhead.

During this visit:

• I presented formal legal name change documentation for myself and my children;

• Ms. Mountain photographed these documents and assured me of her assistance —

An assurance which, like so many from RBKC, quietly dissolved without action.

Subsequently:

• Ms. Mountain co-authored an assessment containing multiple factual inaccuracies,

• Chief among them, the false claim that I "yell at my children" —

  • Based on a deeply misinterpreted phone call with my abusive mother,

  • And grotesquely misrepresented as evidence of emotional harm.

Worse still:

• This assessment was finalised and circulated without

  • My consultation;

  • My review;

  • Or my consent.

• It was then withheld from me for three full months,

  • A delay RBKC has never sought to justify.

Falsehoods were thus embedded in official records, beyond my ability to contest.

---

📜 II. Medical Realities and Professional Impossibilities

I live with:

• Eosinophilic asthma;

• Muscle tension dysphonia,

Both of which:

• Severely restrict my ability to speak under stress;

• Render "yelling" not merely unlikely, but physiologically impossible.

These conditions:

• Were formally documented;

• Explicitly communicated to RBKC staff.

Ms. Mountain’s perpetuation of the allegation:

• Ignored medical realities;

• Violated the Equality Act 2010;

• Demonstrated disability-based prejudice disguised as professional judgment.

---

📚 III. RBKC’s Response: Administrative Amnesia

On 24 March 2025, I lodged a formal complaint (Ref: 15083377), outlining these matters.

RBKC’s reply:

• Declined investigation,

• Citing the familiar — and legally tenuous — excuse that the events were "over 12 months old."

This position is:

• Factually incorrect — my communications continued into the present;

• Procedurally indefensible — the impact of the misconduct remains ongoing.

RBKC:

• Failed to implement reasonable adjustments;

• Failed to investigate credible concerns;

• Failed, in short, to govern itself with even cursory compliance to law or conscience.

---

📜 IV. Grounds for Ombudsman Review

I respectfully request the Ombudsman investigate:

• Maladministration, for the refusal to investigate substantiated allegations;

• Breach of the Equality Act 2010, by denying reasonable adjustments;

• Failure of procedural fairness, due to withheld assessments and exclusion from participation;

• Ongoing harm, caused by the entrenchment of false narratives in professional records.

I am in possession of:

• All correspondence;

• Medical documentation;

• Evidence of procedural failings.

These can be furnished upon request.

---

📬 Closing Request

I await:

• Confirmation of receipt of this complaint;

• Notification of any further steps required to proceed.

I trust the Ombudsman will treat this matter with the gravity it commands.

---

📜 Yours,

With due and documented concern,
Polly

---

---

🦚 On Procedural Stonewalling and the Ritual Passing of the Grievance: A Final Response from RBKC’s Customer Relationship Team

Filed under the documentation of polite deflection and the formal choreography of complaint referral.

---

27 March 2025
To: Polly

---

📜 Dear Polly,

Subject: Your Complaint (Ref: 15083377)

---

Thank you for your email.

---

🧾 On Why We Shall Not Proceed Further

As per our prior correspondence:

We are unable to process your complaint.

Thus, should you remain dissatisfied — a likelihood we acknowledge but do not seek to address —
we invite you, with all due courtesy, to forward your complaint to the Ombudsman.

---

🧭 Next Steps: The Path to External Remedy

You may now refer your case to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO).

Key details:

• You typically have 12 months from the date you first knew about the issue (not from today's date) to make your complaint.

• The Ombudsman may consider older complaints if good reason is established.

The Ombudsman:

• Investigates complaints about councils, social care providers, and select public services;

• Operates fairly, impartially, and without charge.

Be advised:

• Certain matters fall outside the Ombudsman’s remit, and

• Where so, an explanation for non-investigation will be provided.

---

📬 Contact Details for the Ombudsman

• Website: www.lgo.org.uk

• Email: complaints@rbkc.gov.uk (local reference forwarding)

• Telephone: 0300 061 0614

• Postal Address:
  Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
  PO Box 4771
  Coventry, CV4 0EH

Please ensure you provide the Ombudsman with this letter,
and copies of all previous responses from us,
so that your complaint may be formally reviewed.

---

📜 Yours faithfully,

Customer Relationship Team
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

---

---

🦚 On Institutional Denial and the Gentle Art of Not My Department: A Formal Response from RBKC

Filed under the documentation of polite rejection and administrative boundary-drawing.

---

11 March 2025
Our reference: 15083377
To: Polly

---

📜 Dear Polly,

Subject: Your complaint, Reference 15083377

Thank you for your complaint, received on 11 March 2025.

---

🧾 On Why This Is, Apparently, Not Our Problem

Unfortunately, we must inform you that we are unable to deal with your complaint, as — in the considered view of this department —

the complaint is not for this organisation.

RBKC social workers, we are assured, are not presently involved with your family.

Conclusion:
Thus, your concerns — however articulated or documented — have been filed neatly into the category of someone else’s business.

---

📚 If We Have Misunderstood (Which, Naturally, Is Not Assumed)

Should you feel that our understanding of your concerns is incomplete, you are, of course, welcome to correct us.

Alternatively — and more conveniently for our correspondence metrics — if you remain dissatisfied,

you may now proceed to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the Ombudsman).

---

🧭 On Your Journey to the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman investigates:

• Individual complaints about councils;

• All adult social care providers;

• Some organisations providing local public services.

It operates:

• Fairly;

• Impartially;

• Free of charge (though rarely free of procedural delay).

Please note:

• You usually have up to 12 months to make your complaint, starting from the date you first knew about the issue —
  not from the date of this letter (an important technicality).

• Some matters may be outside their jurisdiction, in which case they will explain — firmly but courteously — why your concerns shall be dismissed elsewhere.

---

📜 Important Administrative Note

When approaching the Ombudsman, you will need to provide:

• A copy of this letter;

• All earlier responses received from us (should you still possess the originals in unredacted form).

This will allow the Ombudsman to consider your complaint — with, one hopes, more appetite for engagement.

---

📜 Yours bureaucratically,

The Customer Relationship Team
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

---