🦚 On Chronology, Harm, and the Decline of Procedural Conscience: A Response to Mr. Emmett Hazelnut, RBKC
Filed under the record of administrative deflection and the bureaucratic romanticisation of time limits.
26 March 2025
To: Mr. Emmett Hazelnut
Corporate Complaints, Learning and Improvement Officer
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Re: Case Reference 15197257 – Rejection of Request for Formal Investigation
🧾 Dear Mr. Hazelnut,
I write in response to your recent letter declining to initiate a formal investigation into the conduct of two social workers employed by RBKC Children’s Services.
While I appreciate the Council’s unwavering devotion to administrative tidiness, I must register my firm disagreement with your decision to dismiss this matter on the basis of chronology alone.
It is, no doubt, a comfort to many that RBKC adheres to its neat 12-month policy window.
Unfortunately, harm — unlike paperwork — rarely conforms to filing deadlines.
This, I regret to inform you, is one such case.
📜 On Procedural History and Historical Amnesia
To imply that this complaint is a recent revelation is, I’m afraid, categorically inaccurate.
I have raised concerns regarding this matter:
Repeatedly;
In multiple formats;
Across an extended timeline.
The failure to elicit a formal response sooner lies not with my submission, but rather with RBKC’s infrastructural gift for misfiling, overlooking, or euphemising concerns into oblivion.
To disregard a complaint on the grounds that it was never “properly received” is to reward the very machinery of institutional evasion.
📚 On Health, Harm, and the Mechanics of Delay
I must further draw your attention to my documented medical conditions, which include:
Severe eosinophilic asthma;
Muscle tension dysphonia;
Panic disorder, all clinically evidenced.
These conditions:
Limit my ability to engage in complex administrative processes;
Are directly exacerbated by stress, dismissal, and procedural hostility;
And have been materially worsened by the conduct at issue.
The consequences of these professional failings are not historical.
They are ongoing, measurable, and medically substantiated.
To dismiss the matter as “out of date” is, at best, legally questionable, and at worst, ethically tone-deaf.
📜 On Discretion and the Spirit of Policy
While I acknowledge that the Council’s complaints policy cites a 12-month limit, the very same document affirms that exceptions may be granted in cases of:
Ongoing harm;
Disability-related barriers;
Institutional mishandling.
I submit — confidently — that all three apply here.
I therefore request that RBKC reconsider its position and exercise its discretionary authority to investigate this matter in the spirit, not merely the letter, of policy.
Should you elect to uphold your refusal, I request a formal written rationale, suitable for submission to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, who may take a more expansive — and perhaps less clerical — view of what constitutes justice in delayed times.
📜 Closing Reflection
This complaint was not composed in haste, nor in search of catharsis.
It was written to document a trajectory of harm, sustained over time and enabled by silence.
I await your reply — ideally one that marks a departure from technicality and a return to professional accountability.
Yours,
With due formality and documented restraint,
Polly