⟡ “We Regret to Inform You That Accountability Is Outside Your Jurisdiction.” ⟡
The RBKC Monitoring Officer’s Elegant Refusal to Monitor Anything
Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/DISABILITY-BLOCK
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Rejection_RBKCMonitoringOfficer_DisabilityDiscrimination.pdf
A monitoring officer's refusal to investigate documented statutory breaches by Children’s Services on the basis of administrative geography.
I. What Happened
On 2 June 2025, LeVerne Parker — Chief Solicitor and Monitoring Officer for RBKC — formally responded to a Section 5 complaint submitted on 21 May 2025. The original complaint, submitted by Polly Chromatic, detailed unlawful safeguarding retaliation, disability discrimination, and abuse of legal process by named Children’s Services staff between 2022–2024. The response: RBKC cannot investigate RBKC actions — because the child in question now lives in Westminster.
Despite the complaint citing conduct that occurred during the RBKC jurisdiction period (pre-2024), including misuse of the CIN framework, procedural coercion, and failure to accommodate written-only communication due to disability, the officer refused to act. The rationale: unless the Ombudsman had already investigated, she would not review any internal misconduct.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
A statutory complaint citing:
Retaliatory safeguarding escalation
Breach of written-only disability accommodations
Ignored psychiatric and medical documents
Emotional harm to children
A refusal by RBKC to even consider whether misconduct occurred
The deliberate weaponisation of jurisdictional technicality to avoid accountability
A monitoring officer interpreting “monitoring” as “deferral”
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 exists for precisely this reason: to compel internal reporting of unlawful or maladministrative conduct by council officers. What we witnessed here was a sterile, legalistic dance — a refusal to act, cloaked in etiquette, ignoring the lived consequences of procedural abuse and disability discrimination.
This wasn’t just administrative evasion.
It was public trust laundered through bureaucratic indifference.
It was safeguarding malpractice hidden beneath legal credentials.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to honour disability adjustments
Children Act 1989 – Neglect of duty to safeguard welfare without retaliation
Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (s.5) – Failure to report unlawful conduct
Human Rights Act 1998 – Interference with family life, due process
Data Protection Act 2018 – Negligent handling of sensitive health and risk data
V. SWANK’s Position
SWANK does not accept a model of governance where monitoring officers selectively refuse to monitor. RBKC’s claim that internal review is only triggered by external investigation undermines the legislative intent of Section 5. Where legal claims, medical documentation, and procedural abuses are raised, institutional silence is not neutral — it is complicit.
This wasn’t jurisdiction. It was abdication.
And SWANK will continue to log every jurisdictional shrug dressed as discretion.
⟡ 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.