⟡ “Too Late to Investigate? Or Too Damaging to Confront?” ⟡
Polly Chromatic Requests the Ombudsman Override RBKC’s Rejection of Historic Safeguarding Complaints
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-05
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Email_LGSCO_RequestOverride_RBKC_HistoricSafeguardingRefusal.pdf
Summary: Request for the LGSCO to override RBKC’s refusal to review historic safeguarding complaints under Regulation 9, citing medical barriers and repeated attempts to report misconduct.
I. What Happened
RBKC refused to investigate safeguarding complaints involving Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan, citing the passage of time. On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal request to the Ombudsman asking that they exercise their discretionary powers under Regulation 9 to consider these concerns in the public interest.
The request notes that prior complaints were never closed with consent, and that disability-related communication barriers made it impossible to meet RBKC’s procedural timeframes. The underlying issues involve discrimination, safeguarding breach, and retaliation.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
• RBKC is shielding social worker misconduct behind administrative time limits
• Regulation 9 exists precisely to bypass such limits when public protection is at stake
• The complainant has repeatedly attempted to escalate these issues over time
• Communication disabilities were used as a procedural disqualifier
• Refusal to investigate becomes an institutional defence mechanism, not an accident
• LGSCO has a clear legal pathway to re-open these matters and examine them substantively
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the harm didn’t expire — so the complaint shouldn’t either.
Because Regulation 9 was written for exactly these moments: where injustice survives because of red tape.
Because Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan’s actions remain uninvestigated not because they were trivial — but because they were strategic.
SWANK records not just the complaint — but the refusal to bury it.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that time limits override institutional accountability.
We do not accept that barriers to verbal communication negate a person’s right to report harm.
We do not accept that safeguarding failures can be deleted by calendar year.
This wasn’t a new complaint. This was a refusal to forget.
And SWANK will archive every delay, every denial, and every system that mistook time for permission.
⟡ 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.