⟡ “We Acknowledge Your Request. We Will Not Proceed Until You Prove Who You Are Again.” ⟡
Westminster Council Confirms It Holds the Records — But Imposes Identification Conditions Before Starting the Clock
Filed: 30 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-30_SWANK_Email_Westminster_SAR_Acknowledgement_Request40092693.pdf
Summary: Westminster City Council acknowledges a subject access request for social care case files and confirms the data is protected under the DPA — not FOI — delaying the start of the 30-day deadline until ID is re-submitted.
I. What Happened
On 22 May 2025, a subject access request was submitted to Westminster Council for all internal records between 1 February 2024 and 31 May 2025 related to you and your children, including communications about legal claims, safeguarding referrals, and retaliatory actions.
On 30 May 2025, Westminster responded: the request was valid, but would not be processed under FOI — only under the Data Protection Act 2018. They requested ID documents for both you and your children and stated that the 30-day response clock would not begin until those were received. They also warned the case would be closed after three months if documents were not submitted.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
• Westminster does not deny possession of highly sensitive internal communications and safeguarding records
• The Council uses data protection protocols to create delay before disclosure
• There is no proactive safeguarding triage — just a compliance procedure requiring identity re-validation
• The burden to unlock the records is fully placed on the subject — not the holder of the harm
• Institutional data control becomes a form of evidentiary power: the facts exist, but remain sealed
• This email affirms that case notes, internal emails, Mosaic logs, and legal mentions are held — but protected
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is the confirmation that the archive exists — and the bureaucracy surrounding it is not neutral.
Because while you are litigating discrimination and harm, the data needed to prove it is put behind a timed portal that the state controls.
Because when the Council holds your life’s receipts and makes you ask twice — that’s not privacy. It’s procedural superiority.
SWANK logs not just what they say — but what they delay.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that public records can be sequestered behind repeat ID hurdles while retaliation continues.
We do not accept that data control should be used to delay evidence access during live proceedings.
We do not accept that the Council’s timeline supersedes the urgency of the harm done.
This wasn’t data protection. This was gatekeeping.
And SWANK will archive every threshold they install.
⟡ 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.