⟡ DISABILITY NON-ACCOMMODATION & PROCEDURAL ESCALATION – ADDENDUM II ⟡
Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/DISABILITY-NON-ACCOMMODATION/ADDENDUM-II
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-107_RBKC_DisabilityNonAccommodation_AddendumII.pdf
Summary: Second addendum submitted in support of N1 Civil Claim and Judicial Review, expanding on direct evidence of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea’s (RBKC) continued refusal to accommodate the claimant’s medically confirmed disabilities between January and March 2024. The document establishes procedural retaliation, safeguarding misuse, and the escalation of discrimination during medically unsafe periods.
I. What Happened
This Addendum II captures a precise period — January through March 2024 — during which RBKC persisted in procedural escalation despite explicit medical documentation confirming the claimant’s respiratory and vocal impairment.
The record contains excerpts of contemporaneous correspondence showing sustained non-accommodation and escalation during periods of respiratory crisis:
• “I cannot breathe well. Not sure what you can’t understand.”
[Ref: 2024.09.02 Samira 2.1, 5.32, 6.982]
• “You escalated the case based on the fact that I kept trying to tell you that I am not able to breathe well enough to talk orally…”
[Ref: 2024.01.03 Samira 8.382, 5.55]
• “What accommodations have you decided to employ in order to respect the fact that I cannot discuss these things orally?”
[Ref: 2024.01.03 Samira 0.326, 5.98]
Instead of providing adjustments, RBKC chose escalation — mistaking illness for defiance and disability for disobedience.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That RBKC ignored repeated Equality Act notifications of medical incapacity.
• That verbal and procedural escalation occurred despite the claimant’s confirmed respiratory limitations.
• That safeguarding actions were initiated during active medical illness, constituting procedural retaliation.
• That internal records lacked lawful grounds, transparency, or factual justification.
• That medical incapacity was used as administrative evidence of “non-engagement.”
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To preserve unambiguous written evidence of state negligence disguised as safeguarding.
• To define the precise chronology where communication became coercion.
• To connect personal medical harm to systemic procedural misconduct.
• Because bureaucracy’s indifference to breath is not error — it is culture.
IV. Legal Framework
Statutes Invoked:
• Equality Act 2010 – s.20 (reasonable adjustments), s.26 (harassment).
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Art.3 (degrading treatment), Art.8 (private/family life).
• Children Act 1989 – s.17 (non-discriminatory safeguarding duties).
Legal Allegations:
• Procedural dishonesty and misuse of safeguarding powers.
• Disability discrimination through deliberate non-accommodation.
• Emotional and physical harm resulting from administrative escalation.
V. SWANK’s Position
“When a local authority refuses to accommodate breath, it legislates suffocation.”
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a forensic affidavit of administrative harm — evidence that procedural insistence can itself become violence.
The addendum functions as both testimony and architecture: a record of how compliance with medical instruction was met not with respect but with escalation.
Every quoted sentence, every ignored plea, is now transmuted into jurisprudence — a written monument to the endurance of breath in the face of bureaucracy.
⟡ 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 suffocation deserves record.
And survival deserves citation.