Safeguarding by Sabotage: When Parents Complain, Westminster Escalates

---

⟡ “When You Retaliate for Complaints, That’s Not Safeguarding — That’s Sabotage” ⟡
A statutory dissection of Westminster’s discriminatory misconduct, procedural breakdown, and the emotional collateral left in its wake.

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/COMPLAINT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_Complaint_Westminster_PLO_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Formal complaint to Westminster Council citing unlawful disability discrimination, PLO retaliation, and safeguarding misuse by Sam Brown and Kirsty Hornal — supported by legal evidence, medical records, and a digital archive.

---

I. What Happened

On 23 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a comprehensive complaint to Westminster City Council. The letter detailed a sequence of events that exposes Westminster’s PLO engagement as procedurally hollow, legally discriminatory, and retaliatory in design.

Key issues include:

• Ignoring written communication mandates backed by clinical reports

• Escalating to PLO after a social worker admitted there were no active safeguarding concerns

• Causing respiratory illness and education disruption following sewer gas poisoning

• Misrepresenting children’s emotional states contrary to recorded and participatory evidence

• Withholding or omitting key evidence from internal records and correspondence

This isn’t just administrative oversight — it’s institutional defamation with statutory consequences.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Direct disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010

• Safeguarding used as reprisal for complaints to hospitals and regulators

• Emotional and educational harm to children caused by statutory harassment

• Failure to document, disclose, or correct internal evidence

• Public authority conduct marked by omission, escalation, and bad faith

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is a canonical example of how public bodies convert complaint defence into safeguarding attack. Westminster responded to regulatory accountability not with reform, but with escalation. The family's health, education, and stability were sacrificed to preserve procedural face.

SWANK archived this complaint to:

• Publicly expose Westminster’s weaponisation of PLO against a disabled parent

• Document retaliation patterns following formal complaints

• Build a foundation for Judicial Review, EHRC submission, and ombudsman proceedings

This isn’t just about what was done. It’s about how predictable, avoidable, and cruel it all was.

---

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (reasonable adjustments), Section 27 (victimisation), Section 149 (public duty)

• Children Act 1989 – Section 22 (welfare of the child), misuse of child protection powers

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair process), Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)

• UK GDPR – Failure to correct inaccurate data, omission of parent-supplied evidence

• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Article 3 (best interests), Article 12 (right to be heard)

---

V. SWANK’s Position

When a safeguarding investigation is offered to be closed, then escalated a month later with no new facts — that’s not protection. That’s punishment. When you misreport a child’s emotional wellbeing while ignoring medical crises and cultural context, you don’t deserve public trust. You deserve public audit.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

• A formal internal investigation into both named officers

• An official apology for discrimination, retaliation, and family harm

• Written-only communication as standard protocol going forward

• Full data transparency and procedural accountability under UK public law

---

⟡ 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.

Health Priority, Rent Waived — But No Repairs in Sight

---

⟡ “You Don’t Need to Pay Rent — The Gas Made You Sick.” ⟡

Elad Acknowledges Severe Health Impact from Flat Conditions, Waives Rent, and Promises Reimbursement While Awaiting Thames Water Repairs

Filed: 3 November 2023
Reference: SWANK/HOUSING/LANDLORD-01
📎 Download PDF – 2023-11-03_SWANK_Email_Landlord_HealthHazardAdmission_NoRentPromise_ThamesWaterDelay.pdf
Summary: Landlord admits flat caused health issues and offers rent waiver and cost reimbursement. Confirms ongoing delay from Thames Water regarding essential repairs.

---

I. What Happened

On 3 November 2023, Polly Chromatic emailed her landlord describing serious illness from sewer gas exposure. The landlord, Elad, responded:

– Stating your health and safety is the “top priority”
– Confirming you should not pay rent that month
– Asking for hotel receipts to reimburse costs
– Admitting he is still waiting on Thames Water’s repair schedule
– Acknowledging your difficulty in relocating due to illness

This exchange took place after emergency evacuation due to housing uninhabitability.

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• The landlord admits the flat was unsafe and caused harm
• There is written consent not to pay rent — which negates later rent pursuit
• Thames Water is identified as a third-party delay factor
• A clear causal link between property conditions and medical harm is outlined
• This forms a legal basis for housing disrepair claims and financial injury

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when the landlord waives rent, it means the problem wasn’t imaginary.
Because reimbursement promises are admissions — and delays are no longer abstract.
Because this is the moment the tenant named the hazard, and the landlord agreed it existed.

SWANK documents every moment the truth slipped through the apology.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that rent is owed on uninhabitable housing.
We do not accept that health-damaging conditions can be excused by “waiting on Thames Water.”
We do not accept that financial harm ends when gas exposure begins.

This wasn’t kindness. It was contractual acknowledgment.
And SWANK will archive every time harm was admitted — but not repaired.

---

⟡ 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.

The Safeguarding Was the Retaliation. This Was the Legal Notice.

---

⟡ “We Filed a Legal Complaint. They Scheduled a Meeting.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Submits Formal Complaint to RBKC and Westminster Monitoring Officer for Retaliatory Safeguarding, Disability Discrimination, and Statutory Breach

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/MO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_MonitoringOfficerComplaint_RBKC_Westminster_DisabilitySafeguardingStatutoryBreach.pdf
Summary: Formal Monitoring Officer complaint citing unlawful conduct and maladministration by named social workers, including PLO retaliation and failure to honour legal disability adjustments.

---

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, Polly Chromatic filed a complaint under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The complaint alleges:

• Retaliation via safeguarding procedures (CIN and PLO) directly after lawful complaints and SARs

• Repeated violations of a psychiatrist-certified written-only adjustment

• Misuse of statutory meetings and coercive intervention

• Failure to act on serious sewer gas-related housing risk and medical letters

• Named staff: Kirsty Hornal, Glen Peache, Edward Kendall, Rhiannon Hodgson, and unnamed management

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• PLO was triggered as a direct response to complaint activity
• Disability adjustments from Dr. Irfan Rafiq were ignored
• Environmental harm was excluded from reports and decisions
• Legal meeting procedure violated both the Equality Act 2010 and voluntariness guidance
• The complaint activates the Monitoring Officer’s statutory duty to investigate unlawful or maladministrative conduct

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Monitoring Officers are the legal stopgaps for systemic harm — and most never act until the archive proves they failed.
Because this wasn’t a complaint. It was a legal trigger.
Because the Council escalated after this — confirming its truth.

SWANK archives the moment the legal system was told — and chose silence.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that complaints invite safeguarding.
We do not accept that psychiatrists’ medical orders are optional.
We do not accept that officers can bypass law by calling it concern.

This wasn’t care. It was coordinated misconduct — and this was the formal record of warning.

---

⟡ 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.