🦚 Formal Complaint Under the Equality Act 2010: Systemic Disability Discrimination and the Artful Refusal of Reasonable Adjustments

Filed under the solemn documentation of unlawful exclusion, retaliatory practice, and institutional disdain dressed as procedure.

10 March 2025
To: The Complaints Department
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Children’s Services
Town Hall, Hornton Street, London, W8 7NX
Subject: Formal Complaint Under the Equality Act 2010 – Systemic Disability Discrimination and the Artful Refusal of Reasonable Adjustments

🧾 Dear Sir or Madam,

It is with weary precision and legally substantiated exasperation that I submit this formal complaint concerning the conduct of social workers operating under RBKC Children’s Services.

The matter concerns the persistent failure to implement reasonable adjustments, as required under the Equality Act 2010, and an alarming pattern of retaliation, exclusion, and bureaucratic cruelty, thinly disguised as “support.”

Let us dispense with euphemism:

This is not a misunderstanding. It is disability discrimination —
delivered with procedural flair and administrative apathy.

📜 1. Refusal to Provide Reasonable Adjustments

(Despite Law, Logic, and Letters)

I have been both medically documented and repeatedly explicit in asserting my need for written-only communication, due to the following chronic conditions:

Eosinophilic asthma
Muscle tension dysphonia
Severe panic disorder

These conditions render verbal interaction not only distressing, but medically harmful.

And yet, RBKC Children’s Services has:

Refused written correspondence, even when formally requested;
Insisted on verbal engagement, in direct defiance of medical advisories;
Denied access to advocacy, alternative formats, or disability-informed processes.

What I require to participate has been systematically withheld —
not through error, but through informal policy masquerading as professionalism.

📜 2. Harassment and Retaliation Disguised as Practice

Following my insistence on rights and legal protection, I have been met not with accommodation, but with calculated resistance:

Unannounced home visits, clearly designed to coerce;
Fabricated or misleading documentation, weaponised to justify intrusion;
Disruption to my children’s education and wellbeing, instigated by institutional pressure;
A sustained pattern of retaliation, implying that requesting lawful accommodations is viewed internally as an affront.

This is not safeguarding.
It is administrative punishment.

📜 3. Legal Breach: Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 & 29

The behaviour of RBKC social workers constitutes a clear and ongoing breach of statutory duty:

Section 20: Failure to implement reasonable adjustments to prevent disadvantage;
Section 29: Failure to protect against harassment and victimisation in service provision.

What I have experienced is not oversight.
It is a textbook case of unlawful discrimination, delivered beneath the polished crest of one of the wealthiest boroughs in the UK.

📜 4. Remedies (i.e., the Absolute Minimum)

Accordingly, I request that RBKC Children’s Services:

Formally acknowledge its violation of the Equality Act 2010;
Confirm that all future communication will be conducted in writing;
Cease all retaliatory activity, including unsolicited home visits and procedural intimidation;
Issue a formal written apology, recognising the distress caused;
Implement mandatory disability awareness training, with specific reference to communication-related conditions and non-visible disabilities.

📜 5. Next Steps (and Consequences of Continued Evasion)

If a satisfactory response is not received within 28 days, I will escalate without delay to:

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO)
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)
Formal legal proceedings to pursue redress for discrimination and statutory breach

I expect acknowledgment of this complaint and an explanation — if one exists —
of what steps RBKC intends to take that rise above its usual threshold of institutional inertia.

📜 Yours,

With due and documented formality,
Polly

🦚 A Formal Complaint of Collective Negligence: Gina Banana, Misty Grape, Cathy Carp, and Rita Ham

Filed under the solemn record of coordinated professional silence and procedural abdication.

2025.04.04
To: The Complaints Department, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea – Children’s Services
Subject: Formal Complaint – Collective Negligence by Gina Banana, Misty Grape, Cathy Carp, and Rita Ham

🧾 Dear Custodians of RBKC’s Professional Standards,

I regret the necessity of yet another formal complaint to your office, though I observe that such repetition appears to be the only reliable feature of my experience with RBKC Children’s Services.

This submission concerns the remarkably uniform inaction of four individuals employed within your department:

Gina Banana
Misty Grape
Cathy Carp
Rita Ham

Each professional was explicitly and repeatedly copied into communications that outlined grave, ongoing harm — medical, emotional, and legal.
These communications were neither cryptic nor vague; they were clear, urgent, and thoroughly substantiated.

And yet:

Each recipient achieved a level of coordinated silence so complete that it ought to be studied as a masterclass in bureaucratic inertia.

📜 What They Knew (But Chose Not to Acknowledge)

In the materials received, I outlined:

That I am disabled, living with eosinophilic asthma and muscle tension dysphonia, rendering verbal speech during stress medically unsafe;
That I submitted formal medical documentation requesting written-only communication under the Equality Act 2010;
That my household was recovering from sewer gas poisoning, and in-person visits were medically unsafe;
That I was enduring emotional retraumatisation, panic attacks, and worsening physical health through forced verbal engagement;
That named staff — Ernie Wallace, Ruth Pepper, and Flora Saxophone — were engaged in conduct violating safeguarding and disability protections;
That my formal complaints were going unacknowledged and legally protected adjustments systematically denied.

Despite full access to these disclosures:

None of the four responded, intervened, or sought clarification.

Their silence — in the face of written, clinical, and legal distress — speaks volumes about the internal culture at RBKC Children’s Services, where looking away appears not an aberration, but an expectation.

📚 Professional Failures, Catalogued

Failure	Description
Neglect of Disability Law	Access needs documented under the Equality Act were disregarded wholesale.
Breach of Safeguarding Duty	Clear indicators of trauma, harm, and health risk were ignored.
Complicity by Omission	Harmful practices were enabled by their collective silence.
Erosion of Public Trust	Institutional credibility was irreversibly degraded.

They did not prevent harm.
They simply refused to acknowledge it.

🩻 Consequences of Their Collective Inaction

Preventable deterioration of chronic health conditions;
Escalation of emotional distress, including panic attacks and communicative shutdowns;
Total collapse of trust in RBKC as a safeguarding institution;
Psychological injury to my children, who witnessed not protection, but abandonment.

🧾 Redress and Accountability Requested

Accordingly, I respectfully request that RBKC Children’s Services:

Initiate a formal investigation into the collective conduct of Gina Banana, Misty Grape, Cathy Carp, and Rita Ham;
Provide a detailed written explanation as to why no action or even acknowledgment followed receipt of safeguarding concerns;
Acknowledge the material and emotional harm facilitated by their professional silence;
Outline corrective measures to ensure that receipt of safeguarding information is no longer treated as optional correspondence.

📜 Final Reflection

These professionals may not have authored the original harm,
but their refusal to act rendered them collaborators in its perpetuation.

In safeguarding work, silence is not neutrality.
It is complicity.

This is not merely a complaint about individual oversight.
It is an indictment of institutional culture, where neglect is papered over with polite forwarding, and inaction wears the uniform of professional discretion.

Yours (unfortunately, again),
Polly

Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.)