“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label Section 5 LGA 1989. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Section 5 LGA 1989. Show all posts

When Your Disability Adjustment Becomes Grounds for Escalation


⟡ We Filed the Law. They Filed a Retaliation. ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/LGA1989/MO-RBKC-WCC
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_RBKC_WCC_MonitoringOfficer_Complaint_DisabilityAbuse_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf

I. This Is Not a Whinge. It Is a Statutory Intervention.

Filed under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, this letter was submitted to:

  • The Monitoring Officer of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)

  • The Monitoring Officer of Westminster City Council (WCC)

It outlines:

  • Disability discrimination

  • Safeguarding retaliation

  • Misuse of statutory thresholds

  • Institutional refusal to comply with written-only communication adjustments

What they called “procedure,”
we named — and filed — as statutory breach.

II. When the Adjustment Itself Becomes the Offence

At issue:

  • The Director’s medical exemption from verbal communication

  • A cascade of retaliatory emails, safeguarding threats, and escalation attempts

  • Councils ignoring lawful adjustments to manufacture non-compliance

  • The absurdity of equating silence with risk when the silence was a protected adjustment

This isn’t negligence.
It’s orchestrated procedural cruelty.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the Monitoring Officer is not decoration — they are statutory gatekeeper to lawful governance.
Because institutional retaliation cannot be disguised as support.
Because what happened here is not “confusion.” It is weaponised procedure.

Let the record show:

  • The law was cited

  • The misconduct was named

  • The retaliation was logged

  • And SWANK — filed it not to complain, but to assert jurisdiction

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe that disability protections are optional.
We do not permit councils to repurpose silence as suspicion.
We do not treat safeguarding misuse as administrative inconvenience.

Let the record show:

The abuse was documented.
The threshold was breached.
The retaliation was overt.
And SWANK — escalated with statute in hand.

This is not correspondence.
This is a structural ceasefire demand — backed by legislation.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions