SWANK :: Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms : RBKC Children’s Services

Showing posts with label RBKC Children’s Services. Show all posts

PC-1818: ⟡ IN RE POLLY CHROMATIC (RBKC) [2024] SWANK 1818 ⟡

The Borough That Mistook Bias for Bureaucracy.

Filed: 11 February 2024
Reference: SWANK / RBKC Children’s Services / PC-1818
Download PDF: 2024-02-11_Core_PC-1818_RBKCChildrenServices_SystemicDiscriminationClaim.pdf
Summary: Email titled “Meline Discrimination Claim 11.02.2024” from Polly Chromatic to a cross-continental distribution list of local authorities, NHS Trusts, education boards, and Caribbean regulators — a polite but unmistakable declaration of jurisdictional war.

I. What Happened

• On 11 February 2024 at 17:29 BST, Polly Chromatic circulated a formal notice of systemic discrimination, detailing years of harassment by RBKC Children’s Services, Camden Council, multiple NHS Trusts, and affiliate schools.
• The message was sent simultaneously to twenty-three official addresses and seven international recipients — an exercise in administrative precision and polite defiance.
• The body of the email was brief to the point of elegance: “My children and I want to enjoy our lives in peace and are tired of being discriminated against and harassed.”
• Attached was the document entitled Meline Discrimination Claim 11.02.2024.pdf — a comprehensive legal narrative spanning decades of medical, educational, and procedural neglect.
• In its restraint, the email achieved what entire ombudsman departments fail to: it put the State on notice without once raising its voice.

II. What the Document Establishes

• Evidence of coordinated discrimination across local authority and health-care boundaries.
• Proof of parental exhaustion rendered in immaculate grammar.
• A timestamped record of Equality Act and Human Rights violations submitted simultaneously to every possible agency with a complaints form.
• Administrative art: minimal text, maximum implication.
• That bureaucracy is rarely as efficient as its targets.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• Because this is what a modern civil-rights missile looks like — sent from a MacBook, not a megaphone.
• Because discrimination complaints are usually buried in portals; this one was delivered like an invitation to a very expensive truth.
• Because the email demonstrates that dignity is still a weapon, and BCC is still strategy.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Equality Act 2010 ss. 13, 19, 26 & 27 — direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation.
• Children Act 1989 s. 22(3)(a) — duty to promote well-being.
• ECHR Arts. 6 & 8 — fair hearing and respect for private life.
• UN CRPD Arts. 7 & 25 — rights of children and persons with disabilities.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “a parental complaint.”
This is a notice of structural bias served with impeccable punctuation.

• We do not accept bureaucratic cruelty disguised as procedure.
• We reject local authority manners as mitigation.
• We file every euphemism for “miscommunication” under “perjury lite.”

⟡ Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every comma jurisdictional, every recipient culpable.
Because when an entire bureaucracy is CC’d, it can never claim ignorance.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because evidence deserves elegance — and retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Unlicensed reproduction will be cited as panic, not authorship.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd (United Kingdom) and SWANK London LLC (United States of America). Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. Every division operates under dual sovereignty: UK evidentiary law and U.S. constitutional speech protection. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act (UK), and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, alongside all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK International Protocols — dual-jurisdiction evidentiary standards, registered under SWANK London Ltd (UK) and SWANK London LLC (USA). © 2025 SWANK London Ltd (UK) & SWANK London LLC (USA) All formatting, typographic, and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

Chromatic v Westminster Children’s Services, RBKC Children’s Services and HMCTS [2025] SWANK PC-095 (HC)

⟡ Addendum: On the Etiquette of Submissions and the Cloud-Based Patience of the Litigant ⟡

Filed: 6 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HIGH-COURT/PC-095
Document: 2025-05-06_Core_PC-095_HighCourt_JRFollowUp_RBKCWestminsterHMCTS.pdf
Summary: Follow-up correspondence to the Administrative Court reaffirming the claimant’s Judicial Review filings against Westminster Children’s Services, RBKC Children’s Services, and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—an email so civilised it ought to have been bound in vellum.

I. What Happened

On 6 May 2025 the claimant, polite to the point of weaponry, reminded the Administrative Court that her Judicial Review existed, intact, and somewhere in the digital empyrean known as Google Drive. The note contained no threats, no flourish—only the serene confidence that justice could, perhaps, click a link.

II. What the Letter Establishes

That due process now floats in the cloud, while human patience remains resolutely terrestrial.
That “please find attached” has become an act of faith.
That the Administrative Court’s greatest test is not jurisprudence but broadband.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this message is pure procedural poetry: a missive whose subject line alone (“Judicial Review Supplement – Simlett v Westminster / RBKC / Crown Court”) could silence a chamber.
It embodies the modern paradox—to file is divine, to follow up, inevitable.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – failure to accommodate written-only adjustments.
Article 6 HRA – justice delayed by administrative latency.
Article 8 HRA – family life compressed into attachments.
Digital Decorum – breach of responsiveness beyond reasonable human patience.

V. SWANK’s Position

The High Court’s inbox remains an altar of unread supplications; SWANK, however, treats each email as liturgy.
To press “Send” under these conditions is not communication—it is devotion.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.

Chromatic v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Children’s Services [2025] SWANK PC-098 (HC)

⟡ Addendum: On Equality, Air, and the Administrative Pretence of Courtesy ⟡

Filed: 12 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/PC-098
Document: 2025-05-12_Core_PC-098_RBKCChildrenServices_JRResponseEqualityBreach.pdf
Summary: Correspondence chain between the claimant and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s legal team, forming part of the Judicial Review pre-action protocol concerning the unlawful escalation to PLO and the refusal to implement written-only communication as a lawful disability adjustment.

I. What Happened

Between 25 April and 12 May 2025, the claimant delivered a Pre-Action Protocol letter to the borough’s legal departments—an oxygen-assisted plea for proportionality disguised as procedure.
RBKC responded, eventually, through one Rosita Moise, Senior Solicitor, in tones of bureaucratic reassurance that could suffocate a saint. The reply, delayed and perfumed with disclaimers about Bank Holidays, managed to acknowledge everything except responsibility.

II. What the Exchange Establishes

That timeliness and empathy are strangers within local-authority inboxes.
That “no discourtesy is intended” is the contemporary equivalent of “let them eat cake.”
That to misinterpret a medical adjustment as non-compliance is not mere incompetence—it is discrimination rehearsed as administration.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this email chain is a specimen of the polite brutality that sustains institutional harm. It documents the choreography of evasion: the solicitor’s paragraph as shield, the courtesy copy as camouflage, and the disabled parent’s breathlessness as unread attachment.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 & 149: failure to provide reasonable adjustments.
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6 & 8: denial of procedural fairness and family integrity.
Public Law Principles – breach of fairness, proportionality, and common decency.

V. SWANK’s Position

The borough’s correspondence exemplifies the administrative art of appearing responsive while doing nothing.
SWANK records this exchange as a micro-study in velvet-gloved negligence: the jurisprudence of delay, composed in Calibri.

Chromatic v RBKC & Westminster (PC-110): On the Administration of Ignorance

⟡ EXHIBIT LOG – FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADJUSTMENTS & MEDICAL RISK (2024) ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/EQUALITY-ACT-EXHIBIT-LOG
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-110_RBKCWestminsterChildrenServices_EqualityActAdjustmentsFailure_ExhibitLog.pdf
Summary: An official Exhibit Log accompanying the evidentiary file Failure to Provide Adjustments: Written Requests and Medical Risk (2024), documenting a year-long record of ignored Equality Act correspondence, procedural coercion, and medically hazardous oversight by RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services. The log formally enumerates the core communications and timestamps forming the factual spine of both the N1 Civil Claim and the Judicial Review filings (N461/N463).

I. What Happened

On 18 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) filed this exhibit log as part of her consolidated Equality Act and Human Rights claim sequence, cross-referenced within active proceedings before the Civil and Administrative Courts.

The log lists nine key email exhibits dated between March 2024 and January 2025, each evidencing:
• A medically documented written-only communication requirement under psychiatric recommendation;
• Multiple Equality Act compliance notices to social worker Kirsty Hornal and related Westminster personnel;
• Consistent procedural overrides and refusals to implement said adjustments;
• And medically verifiable harm, including respiratory episodes and vocal cord injury following verbal contact attempts.

Each ignored email, timestamped and archived, now functions as an evidentiary relic — proof that institutional negligence can, indeed, be beautifully catalogued.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That Westminster and RBKC sustained a pattern of noncompliance with statutory disability duties.
• That written medical evidence and Equality Act notices were ignored in full awareness of clinical risk.
• That the claimant’s physical deterioration correlates directly with this administrative misconduct.
• That Equality Act breaches were not incidental but deliberate, forming a continuous thread across jurisdictions.
• That harm, once timestamped, becomes jurisprudence.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To immortalise the ignored communication chain as an artefact of bureaucratic cruelty.
• To provide courts and oversight bodies with a chronological map of misconduct — nine precise exhibits of procedural refusal.
• To document how neglect migrates from email to harm, one polite cc at a time.
• Because what Westminster failed to read, SWANK will publish.

IV. Legal & Procedural Framework

Filed Under:
• N1 Civil Claim – Disability discrimination, safeguarding retaliation, and procedural negligence.
• N461/N463 Judicial Review – Failure of local authority to uphold statutory equality duties.
• Regulatory Complaints – LSCP, EHRC, ICO, PHSO.

Statutes Cited:
• Equality Act 2010 – ss. 20, 26, 27 (reasonable adjustments, harassment, victimisation).
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Arts. 3, 6, 8, 14 (dignity, fair process, family life, non-discrimination).
• Data Protection Act 2018 – s.171 (accuracy of recorded data).

V. SWANK’s Position

“Every ignored email is a tiny revolution — an archive of disobedience written in Outlook font.”

SWANK London Ltd. defines this exhibit log as a forensic instrument of clarity — an administrative counterattack executed through impeccable organisation.
Where the local authority cultivated chaos, SWANK produced catalogues.
Where correspondence was ignored, it became art.

The act of listing is itself jurisdictional — a bureaucratic requiem for the institutions that never listened.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because evidence deserves choreography.
And neglect deserves citation.

Chromatic v RBKC & Westminster (PC-111): On the Elegance of Ignored Warnings

⟡ FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADJUSTMENTS – RBKC & WESTMINSTER CHILDREN’S SERVICES ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/FAILURE-ADJUSTMENT-MEDICAL-RISK
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-111_RBKCWestminsterChildrenServices_FailureProvideAdjustmentsMedicalRisk.pdf
Summary: A comprehensive evidentiary file documenting the repeated refusal of RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services to provide legally required communication adjustments despite extensive medical evidence, lawful requests, and clear health risk. The document forms part of the Disability Discrimination and Safeguarding Retaliation Sequence and serves as the foundational affidavit for the N1 Civil Claim and Judicial Review filings.

I. What Happened

Between March 2024 and September 2025, Polly Chromatic made multiple written requests for written-only communication, supported by clinical evidence confirming that verbal interaction caused respiratory distress, panic attacks, and voice loss due to eosinophilic asthma and muscle tension dysphonia.

Despite these lawful and medically certified requests, both boroughs — RBKC and Westminster — persisted in demanding in-person or verbal contact, repeatedly violating the Equality Act 2010.

Emails submitted within this document show:
• Repeated written notices ignored by social worker Kirsty Hornal;
• Escalation to Child Protection procedures during known illness episodes;
• Verifiable medical deterioration following procedural contact;
• A deliberate institutional pattern of disability harassment through communication misuse.

This was not miscommunication — it was systemic contempt.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That RBKC and Westminster breached their Equality Act 2010, Section 20 duty to make reasonable adjustments.
• That their continued verbal and in-person contact constituted harassment under Section 26 of the same Act.
• That their disregard for medical safety during respiratory crises violated Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
• That internal safeguarding reports falsified or misused medical information in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.
• That every ignored email became an act of administrative violence.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To create an evidentiary monument to the bureaucratic refusal of care.
• To ensure medical vulnerability is never again weaponised as justification for state intrusion.
• To connect this incident to the wider chronology of procedural retaliation against a disabled mother and her four U.S.–U.K. citizen children.
• Because silence, once documented, becomes the loudest form of proof.

IV. Legal Framework

Statutes Invoked:
• Equality Act 2010 – ss. 20 (reasonable adjustments), 26 (harassment), 27 (victimisation).
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Arts. 3, 6, 8, 14.
• Data Protection Act 2018 – s.171 (accuracy and lawful processing).
• Children Act 1989 – s.17 (duty to safeguard without discrimination).

Medical Authorities:
• Confirmed diagnoses: Eosinophilic asthma, Muscle Tension Dysphonia, PTSD.
• Evidenced exacerbations linked to procedural contact.
• Lawful communication adjustment prescribed and ignored.

V. SWANK’s Position

“A written request is not a suggestion. It is law in ink.”

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this document as the formal inception of the Procedural Discrimination Archive — the point where clinical evidence and bureaucratic indifference collided.
This file does not simply prove negligence; it establishes motive — the institutional preference for discomfort over compliance.

What Westminster and RBKC called “procedure” was, in truth, policy disguised as cruelty.

Because adjustments are not favours.
They are obligations.

Chromatic v RBKC & Westminster (PC-112): On the Illegality of Ignoring Breath

⟡ MEDICAL & PROCEDURAL OBJECTION – RBKC AND WESTMINSTER CHILDREN’S SERVICES ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/MEDICAL-PROCEDURAL-OBJECTION
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-112_RBKCWestminsterChildrenServices_MedicalProceduralObjection.pdf
Summary: Formal medical and legal objection issued to RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services, restating statutory disability adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998. This filing functions as both a clinical declaration and a procedural ceasefire notice — warning that further safeguarding intrusion will constitute harassment and retaliation under law.

I. What Happened

On 18 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a Medical and Procedural Objection Letter addressed jointly to RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services.

The letter reaffirmed medical diagnoses and lawful adjustments:
• Eosinophilic asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, adjustment disorder, social anxiety disorder — all medically confirmed and functionally disabling.
• Explicit written-only communication requirements under Section 20 Equality Act 2010.
• Prohibition of all unannounced visits and verbal contact, on medical grounds.
• Requirement of seven days’ written notice for all correspondence or procedural engagement.

The document was written after repeated episodes of procedural misconduct: surprise visits, phone calls, and verbal meeting requests that triggered medical harm, including respiratory infection, voice loss, and panic episodes.

This letter was therefore not a courtesy — it was a jurisdictional boundary written in clinical ink.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That both boroughs knowingly disregarded lawful medical adjustments despite written confirmation.
• That verbal and surprise contact attempts constitute direct harassment under Section 26 Equality Act 2010.
• That continued safeguarding escalation in response to lawful objections meets the definition of victimisation under Section 27 Equality Act 2010.
• That medical harm has been documented as a direct result of state intrusion.
• That the right to breathe quietly is not a luxury; it is a human right.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To record the moment when medical documentation became jurisdictional self-defence.
• To establish the evidentiary continuity between clinical harm and procedural retaliation.
• To preserve a written prototype for lawful objection under chronic administrative persecution.
• Because illness must never be treated as inconvenience, and compliance must never be extorted through breathlessness.

IV. Legal & Medical Framework

Statutory Authority:
• Equality Act 2010 – ss. 20 (reasonable adjustments), 26 (harassment), 27 (victimisation).
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Arts. 3, 6, 8, and 14 (protection from degrading treatment, fair process, privacy, and discrimination).
• Children Act 1989 – s. 17 (duty to safeguard without discrimination).

Clinical Authority:
• Medically confirmed diagnoses: Eosinophilic asthma, Muscle Tension Dysphonia, Adjustment Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder.
• Documented respiratory deterioration following safeguarding visits.

V. SWANK’s Position

“Every unannounced visit is a trespass disguised as welfare.”

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this filing as a Medical Jurisdiction Notice — the first in a series of documents defining bodily integrity as a form of procedural sovereignty.
This letter transforms clinical vulnerability into legal strength, asserting that the body itself is a boundary.

The file thus stands as both a legal warning and a curatorial artefact: an affidavit of dignity under siege.

Because medical harm deserves record.
And procedure deserves restraint.

Chromatic v Tri-Borough (PC-113): On the Safeguarding of Power

⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – TRI-BOROUGH LSCP ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/TRI-BOROUGH/LSCP-2025
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-113_TriBoroughLSCP_SafeguardingMisuseDisabilityDiscrimination.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint submitted to the Tri-Borough Local Safeguarding Children Partnership (LSCP) — covering Westminster, RBKC, and Hammersmith & Fulham — regarding the systemic misuse of safeguarding powers, procedural retaliation, and disregard for disability accommodations. This marks the first multi-agency submission in SWANK’s Safeguarding Misuse & Retaliation Sequence, establishing jurisdictional misconduct as a shared municipal habit rather than isolated error.

I. What Happened

On 18 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) filed a written complaint to the Tri-Borough LSCP, naming both Westminster Children’s Services and RBKC Children’s Services as complicit in sustained safeguarding misuse.

The complaint alleged:
• Repeated retaliatory escalation of Child in Need (CIN) and Public Law Outline (PLO) procedures following protected complaints.
• Failure to apply medically confirmed written-only communication adjustments in direct contravention of the Equality Act 2010.
• Disregard of clinical diagnoses including eosinophilic asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, and panic disorder.
• Misrepresentation of home-educated children’s wellbeing, despite documented academic success and positive social worker reports.
• Absence of lawful threshold for continued safeguarding intrusion.

The submission concluded that safeguarding frameworks had been weaponised — that “protection” had become the institutional language of persecution.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That safeguarding procedures were repeatedly mobilised as retaliatory mechanisms rather than welfare measures.
• That disability discrimination has become embedded in the tri-borough safeguarding culture.
• That the failure of multi-agency communication constitutes not accident but method.
• That medical documentation, once ignored, transforms safeguarding into assault by appointment.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve the first instance of multi-agency accountability escalation under the SWANK Evidentiary Charter.
• To demonstrate the structural continuity of safeguarding misuse across borough lines.
• To establish a public record that retaliation is not protection, and intrusion is not care.
• Because when three councils form one silence, the archive must speak instead.

IV. Legal & Regulatory Framework

Statutes Invoked:
• Equality Act 2010 — ss. 15, 19, 20, and 27 (discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate).
• Children Act 1989 — ss. 17 and 47 (misuse of welfare and safeguarding powers).
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Arts. 6, 8, and 14 (fair process, family life, and equality).

Oversight Authorities Referenced:
• Tri-Borough LSCP (multi-agency review request)
• Social Work England (professional accountability)
• Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (maladministration jurisdiction)
• Equality and Human Rights Commission (systemic discrimination inquiry)

V. SWANK’s Position

“When safeguarding forgets who it serves, it becomes surveillance.”

SWANK London Ltd. holds that the Tri-Borough safeguarding partnership has collapsed into ritualised dysfunction — a theatre of concern masking procedural aggression.
The complaint therefore operates as both petition and post-mortem, dissecting the anatomy of a safeguarding system that harms under the banner of help.

It is not merely a document; it is a mirror placed in front of a multi-agency machine that forgot its reflection.

Because safeguarding deserves scrutiny.
And harm deserves record.

Referral Roulette: Social Services’ Favourite Game

⟡ SWANK Rebuttal Dispatch ⟡

When They Call Again for What You've Already Answered
9 February 2024

No Means Documented: A Formal Refusal of Phone Harassment

I. The Referral Loop That Violates Logic and Law

This dispatch concerns a formal reply from Polly Chromatic to Samira Issa of RBKC Children’s Services, following yet another redundant referral—this time made by Chelsea & Westminster Hospital.

The subject?

An incident that:

Occurred on 2 January 2024 at St. Thomas’ Hospital
Was already reported and discussed
Already inflicted documented trauma

“They are referring me for the same incident that I’ve already spoken with you about.”

This is not procedure. This is institutional memory loss weaponised as policy.

II. A Refusal Grounded in Health and Rights

This is not avoidance. It is medical boundary enforcement.

Polly—diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma—makes the legal and clinical position plain:

Verbal contact is contraindicated
Phone calls exacerbate her condition
Repeated contact for the same matter constitutes harassment

“I am concerned about your mental health given that you continue to harass me for the same things over and over…”

This is not safeguarding. This is a fixation masquerading as duty.

III. Legal Action and Documentation

Polly informs Ms. Issa that:

She has retained legal representation for a medical negligence claim
She intends to pursue legal action for continued safeguarding harassment
She has already submitted documentation—three named attachments covering Erik, Eric, and Rebecca

Her concluding instruction?

“Please refrain from contacting me again.”

The tone is not rude. It is final.

© SWANK London Ltd. All Patterns Reserved.
The repetition of a question already answered is not concern—it is coercion.

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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

The Borough That Mistook Bias for Bureaucracy.

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ Addendum: On the Etiquette of Submissions and the Cloud-Based Patience of the Litigant ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Letter Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ Addendum: On Equality, Air, and the Administrative Pretence of Courtesy ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Exchange Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ EXHIBIT LOG – FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADJUSTMENTS & MEDICAL RISK (2024) ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Legal & Procedural Framework

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADJUSTMENTS – RBKC & WESTMINSTER CHILDREN’S SERVICES ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Legal Framework

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ MEDICAL & PROCEDURAL OBJECTION – RBKC AND WESTMINSTER CHILDREN’S SERVICES ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Legal & Medical Framework

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – TRI-BOROUGH LSCP ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Legal & Regulatory Framework

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ SWANK Rebuttal Dispatch ⟡

No Means Documented: A Formal Refusal of Phone Harassment

I. The Referral Loop That Violates Logic and Law

II. A Refusal Grounded in Health and Rights

III. Legal Action and Documentation