“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label Ombudsman Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ombudsman Review. Show all posts

They Had 84 Days to Respond. They Chose Not To. — When Escalation Becomes Evidence



⟡ Complaint Escalation: When Silence Becomes Policy ⟡

“Despite the time elapsed, I have received no final response from the Trust.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/ESCALATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Escalation_GSTT_PHSO_DisabilityDiscrimination.pdf
A formal escalation to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The subject: Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust’s refusal to respond to a complaint about medical neglect, discrimination, and a retaliatory safeguarding referral.


I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic escalated an unresolved formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

The original complaint — sent to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust on 10 March 2025 — addressed:

  • Being denied care during respiratory emergencies

  • Refusal to provide written communication despite a published medical exemption

  • A retaliatory safeguarding referral used against a disabled parent

Nearly three months passed.
There was no resolution.
No apology.
No action.

And so it was escalated — formally, thoroughly, and with full archival precision.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Clinical negligence escalated through refusal to treat life-threatening symptoms

  • Disability discrimination via breach of written-only communication policy

  • Safeguarding used as institutional punishment, not protection

  • Unlawful delay: a total absence of reply from the Trust after formal submission

  • Now under Ombudsman jurisdiction: triggering public accountability review


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because silence is a decision.
Because failure to reply is a form of harm.
And because escalation — when written correctly — becomes evidence of indifference.

This isn't a follow-up. It's a jurisdictional migration.

When NHS Trusts ignore disabled patients after filing discrimination claims, SWANK does not assume forgetfulness.
We assume tactics.
And we document them.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that “no response” is a legitimate clinical position.
We do not accept that safeguarding threats erase the need to answer questions.
We do not accept that a disability complaint should be met with a form letter — or worse, nothing at all.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the Trust can’t be bothered to respond,
We’ll respond for them.
In ink.
Online.
And under full evidentiary seal.


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.


Documented Obsessions