“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 PHSO complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PHSO complaint. Show all posts

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.

No comments:

The Hospital Escalated. So Did We.


⟡ SWANK Parliamentary Complaint ⟡

“They Called It Care. We Filed It as Harm.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/PHSO/GSTT/2025-06-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_PHSOComplaint_GSTT_DisabilityNegligence_SafeguardingAbuse.pdf

I. When Medical Neglect Wears a Badge of Authority

On 2 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. filed a formal complaint with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) regarding Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT).

The subject:

  • Disability discrimination

  • Medical negligence

  • Retaliatory safeguarding abuse

  • Administrative evasion masked as "procedure"

The outcome?
Still pending.
The harm? Documented.
The tone? Unimpressed.

II. What They Did — and Refused to Undo

The complaint details include:

  • Emergency admissions ignored

  • Disabling symptoms (eosinophilic asthma, dysphonia) mishandled

  • Safeguarding used in retaliation for medical complaints

  • Failure to action disability adjustments despite formal record

  • No reply from GSTT even after SWANK filed direct notice

They didn’t just fail to care.
They escalated to punishment when asked to.

III. Why This Went to the PHSO

Because the internal NHS process had exhausted itself into silence.
Because written communication requests were breached.
Because safeguarding was used not to assess, but to threaten.
And because hospitals do not get to rebrand endangerment as “support.”

SWANK invoked its documentary jurisdiction and submitted the complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman — not to request help, but to ensure Parliamentary silence becomes a matter of public record.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not consider medical retaliation “miscommunication.”
We do not treat safeguarding abuse as a health matter.
We do not escalate in fear. We escalate for the file.

This submission is now permanent, timestamped, and public.
Should Parliament fail to act, that failure will be cited as part of the pattern.

They ignored symptoms.
They threatened safeguarding.
And now, they’ve been filed.

⟡ 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.


No comments:

Justice Denied by Design: The Crown Court's Refusal to Accommodate Disability


🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-05-18–PHSO–CROWN-INACCESSIBLE
Filed Under: Due Process Derailed · Legal Theatre of Cruelty · Digital Ableism Chronicles

TO:
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Casework Team

FROM:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 18 May 2025

💼 SUBJECT:

Complaint – Inner London Crown Court & HMCTS

Refusal of Lawful Disability Adjustments
Where Justice Wears a Wig and Ignores the Equality Act

Dear Casework Custodians,

Let us dispense with the theatre of diplomacy: I am writing to report what can only be described as a systemic farce—wherein His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and the Inner London Crown Court have treated disability legislation as optional décor.

Despite:

  • Repeated written requests,

  • Lawful clinical evidence (Rafiq Report, 26 November 2024),

  • And the foundational principles of equal access to justice,

…I was:

  • ❌ Denied my medically essential written-only communication adjustment

  • 🎭 Pressured to appear in person and engage in verbal contact, despite documented risk

  • 🧾 Ignored in clear violation of Sections 20 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010

  • 🧠 Subjected to psychological harm, procedural disadvantage, and discriminatory exclusion

  • ⚖️ Denied access to justice—not by accident, but by repeated institutional neglect

🏛 What I Did (To Be Ignored in Style):

I submitted formal complaints to:

  • The Inner London Crown Court

  • HMCTS

  • The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)

All responded with resounding administrative nothingness. The performance of legality was maintained. The substance of justice was not.

🕯 What I Require:

That the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman conduct a full investigation into:

  • This pattern of disability discrimination

  • The operational and legal failures involved

  • The violations of my human rights under both domestic and international law

✒ Communication Protocol:

Correspondence must be in writing only. This is not negotiable. It is:

  • 🩺 Clinically mandated

  • 📜 Statutorily protected

  • 📌 Previously ignored at cost

Consider this letter not merely a complaint, but a documented refusal to be silently excluded from the very system meant to uphold the rule of law.

Yours in principled indignation,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy


No comments:

Documented Obsessions