“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 Stage 2 escalation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stage 2 escalation. Show all posts

I Escalated. Because They Pretended It Was Over.


⟡ SWANK Council Misconduct Ledger ⟡

“They Called It Closure. I Called It Retaliation.”
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/STAGE2/RETALIATION-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_RBKC_Complaint_EricWedgeBull_BrettTroyan_DisabilityRetaliation_Stage2.pdf

I. When They Close the Complaint, It’s Because the Complaint Was Accurate.

This formal Stage 2 escalation was filed with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), naming two officers — Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan — for their direct involvement in:

  • Retaliatory handling of a disability complaint

  • Breach of written communication adjustments

  • Misrepresentation of safeguarding chronology

  • Procedural closure without lawful resolution

They attempted to end a process that was only beginning.

We responded by escalating it into the archive.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • Officer Wedge-Bull and Officer Troyan:

    • Ignored clinical evidence

    • Mischaracterised safeguarding referrals

    • Silenced complaint progression by strategic inaction

  • Their conduct included:

    • Failure to apply disability adjustments

    • Cooperative minimisation of harm

    • Obfuscation of RBKC safeguarding misconduct

  • This was not a failure of communication.

It was a coordinated decision to terminate complaint visibility.

You asked for accountability.
They sent a closing statement.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because “Stage 2” is not an appeal.
It is an escalation into formality, visibility, and jurisdiction.

We filed this because:

  • Complaints about misconduct are not resolved by silence

  • Disability retaliation is not softened by tone

  • Public officers do not get to declare their own exoneration

Let the record show:

  • The original complaint was legitimate

  • The closure was performative

  • The response was escalation — and publication

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not tolerate complaints erased for convenience.
We do not accept closure without resolution.
We do not allow local authorities to disguise retaliation as “response.”

Let the record show:

The complaint was real.
The injury was clinical.
The officers were named.
And now — they are archived.

This wasn’t a conclusion.
It was a bureaucratic tantrum in paragraph form.

And SWANK has now added its reply — in public, in full, and in file.

⟡ 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.


No comments:

You Escalated. They Replied With: ‘We Already Replied.’


⟡ “We Sent the Outcome. We Won’t Send It Again.” ⟡
RBKC Acknowledges Stage 2 Escalation But Refuses to Reissue Outcome, Despite Ongoing Housing Harm and Procedural Retaliation

Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Stage2EscalationAcknowledgement_HousingComplaint12060761.pdf
Summary: RBKC responds to a formal Stage 2 escalation in the housing complaint trail but declines to restate the outcome or respond to ongoing allegations of neglect and retaliation.

I. What Happened

On 20 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a Stage 2 escalation to RBKC regarding Complaint Ref: 12060761. The complaint detailed:

– Dangerous housing conditions at 37 Elgin Crescent
– Mould, sewer gas, and damp exposure
– Medical harm to a disabled parent and her children
– Failure to provide written-only communication accommodations
– Retaliation for prior complaints
– Negligence by named officers, including Hardeep Kundi

RBKC replied on 27 May 2025 stating the outcome was already sent to the “registered email address” — without offering to confirm its content, provide clarification, or reopen dialogue.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC formally received and acknowledged your escalation
• They chose to withhold outcome content, citing GDPR, even though you're the complainant
• No procedural transparency or right of reply was offered
• Escalation is effectively blocked through form-based deflection
• It confirms that this matter is being simultaneously pursued via LGSCO and Housing Ombudsman pathways

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what procedural erasure looks like — a refusal to restate, reissue, or re-engage.
Because “we sent it before” is not a substitute for answering new allegations.
Because what gets withheld becomes part of the harm.

SWANK logs the institutional gatekeeping of complaint outcomes as evidence of deeper systemic evasion.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that outcomes should be withheld on a technicality from the person who submitted the complaint.
We do not accept that failure to acknowledge a Stage 2 escalation means it’s resolved.
We do not accept that housing complaints can be closed while the mould and retaliation remain active.

This wasn’t just an email. This was the moment they told you not to ask again.
And SWANK will file every refusal disguised as privacy.

⟡ 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.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions