⟡ The Regulator Receives a Safeguarding Emergency and Responds with a Web Link ⟡
Or, When the Complaint Was Real and the Reply Was an Autoresponder
Metadata
Filed: 4 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/REGULATOR/SWE/AUTOREPLY
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Filed from: W2 6JL
Court File Name:2025-07-04_ZC25C50281_Automatic_Response_Social_Work_England_Enquiries.pdf
I. What Happened
On 4 July 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an urgent written communication to Social Work England, documenting:
Allegations of racialised misconduct, procedural abuse, and safeguarding misuse
Ongoing harm caused by social workers Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown
Active civil and judicial review claims in which they are named
A decade of discriminatory state interference
At 9:00 PM, Social Work England replied with this:
“Thank you for emailing Social Work England, the specialist regulator for the social work profession… We are experiencing higher volumes of enquiries and applications at this time…”
No case number.
No triage.
No human name.
Just an instruction not to follow up — because it might delay the non-reply.
II. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a regulator receives a complaint about:
The violent removal of four disabled children
A decade of racial profiling
Documented harm by named professionals
…and replies with “please check our FAQ,”
what they are actually doing is institutional insulation.
Because this was not a general question.
It was a formal notice of breach, misconduct, and complicit inaction.
Because when a parent risks retaliation to speak truth,
the last thing they should receive is a hyperlink to the login page.
III. SWANK’s Position
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this response as:
Procedural evasion
Regulatory negligence
And a performance of oversight without the substance of duty
The email was not just a non-reply.
It was an automated denial of jurisdiction, wrapped in clerical politeness.
We log this as proof that regulatory bodies, too, play the game of delay —
and when asked to regulate, they often prefer to redirect.