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


No comments:

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.


No comments:

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.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions