“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label Subject Access Request. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Subject Access Request. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Data Access Delayed by Proof Request Despite Known Case History


⟡ “You May Access Your Own Data — After You Prove Who You Are. Again. And Again. And Again.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Transparency. It Was Bureaucratic Gatekeeping With a GDPR Gloss.

Filed: 30 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SAR-DELAYTEMPLATE-PROOFBLOCK
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-30_SWANK_SARResponse_Westminster_ProofDelay_Ref40092693.pdf
Westminster City Council reply to Subject Access Request 40092693, demanding redundant ID and residency proof despite known records, delaying access and attaching bureaucratic conditionality.

I. What Happened

On 30 May 2025, Westminster responded to Polly Chromatic’s subject access request regarding misconduct, safeguarding misuse, and retaliation. Rather than begin the search:

  • They reclassified it from FOI to Subject Access — without notice or consultation

  • Demanded additional proof of identity and address, including government-issued ID and utility bills

  • Requested full names and birth dates of her four children — already held by them

  • Refused to begin the 30-day response clock until all demands were met

  • Included a veiled threat: if no reply in three months, the request would be closed

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Westminster used technical formality to delay lawful access

  • Known identity and records were dismissed until re-submitted

  • The reply imposed a delaying conditionality, not a data disclosure process

  • Instead of honouring statutory rights, Westminster forced the requester to re-establish their existence

This wasn’t privacy. It was postponement in procedural prose.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because demanding your name, your address, and your children’s identities from a person you’ve already taken children from is not compliance — it’s institutional gaslighting.
Because bureaucracy that requires re-identification in order to identify records is not neutral — it’s jurisdictional theatre.
Because this wasn’t the start of a search — it was a warning to stop asking.

IV. Violations

  • UK GDPR, Article 15 – Right of access obstructed through excessive identity requirements

  • Data Protection Act 2018 – No accommodation for known disability access format

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Interference with data access as part of family life

  • ICO SAR Code of Practice – Discourages unnecessary identity tests where history is known

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a disclosure process. It was data custody theatre staged to deter the truth.
This wasn’t good faith. It was conditional access requiring self-verification of what they already know.
This wasn’t lawful transparency. It was administrative resistance dressed in GDPR jargon.

SWANK hereby archives this reply not as cooperation, but as the bureaucratic twin of safeguarding retaliation.
The Council took the children.
Now it denies the record.
But the archive keeps both.

⟡ 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 red tape deserves transcription.

© 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:

Polly Chromatic v RBKC: Subject Access Obstructed by Password-Split Encryption Scheme


⟡ “You Have the Right to Your Records. But Only If You Can Solve the Password Puzzle.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Data Disclosure. It Was Procedural Camouflage — Texted in Pieces and Filed in Contempt.

Filed: 30 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/SAR-ACCESSBARRIER-PASSWORDGATE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-30_SWANK_Email_RBKC_SubjectAccess_PasswordObstruction.pdf
Email from RBKC responding to Subject Access Request Ref. 15106629 with a restricted message link and a separately texted password — bypassing accessibility, clarity, and urgency.

I. What Happened

On 30 May 2025 at 15:04, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) responded to a subject access request submitted by Polly Chromatic.

Instead of simply releasing the records, the council:

  • Sent a “secure email” portal link requiring separate log-in

  • Texted the access password (Acentleg65!) to her mobile device

  • Provided no accompanying explanation, accommodation, or confirmation

  • Ignored all previously stated disability access requirements

  • Created an unnecessary digital obstacle to formal data disclosure

The password was not included in the email, nor was the file decrypted or downloadable without navigating the encrypted system.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • RBKC created an artificial barrier to personal data access

  • No reasonable adjustments were made despite known written-only needs

  • The data controller responded in a way that mimicked access — without delivering it

  • The use of password-split delivery serves no data protection purpose beyond procedural delay

  • The strategy weaponises technical friction to discourage subject access

This wasn’t compliance. It was interface theatre designed to wear out resistance.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no one should have to decode a breadcrumb trail to receive what the law guarantees.
Because secure portals are not lawful if they exclude the disabled on purpose.
Because a password isn’t privacy if it’s also policy-based resistance.
Because this wasn’t secure delivery — it was strategic obscurity disguised as compliance.

IV. Violations

  • UK GDPR, Article 15 – Right of access obstructed through inaccessible delivery

  • Data Protection Act 2018, Section 94 – Breach of clear and transparent processing

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments for written disability access

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of accessible remedy for disabled data subject

  • ICO Guidance on SARs – “Unreasonable delay or complexity is not an excuse”

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t secure disclosure. It was technocratic gatekeeping with a password and a smirk.
This wasn’t lawful access. It was digital detour designed for exhaustion.
This wasn’t neutral. It was hostile architecture, archived in velvet.

SWANK hereby logs this password-protected non-delivery as a case study in encryption-based procedural evasion.
The password was “Acentleg65!”
The message was: “We control what you see.”
And the archive?
We file what you tried to fragment.

⟡ 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 encryption deserves exposure.

© 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:

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: SAR Filed for Removal Records — Delayed by Identity Demands and Procedural Gamesmanship


⟡ “I Asked for the Records of My Children’s Removal. They Asked for a Utility Bill.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Safeguarding. It Was Bureaucracy Weaponised Against a Parent Who Filed in Writing.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/SAR-CHILDREMOVAL-DPA40524913
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_Westminster_SubjectAccess_RemovalRecords.pdf
Formal Subject Access Request (SAR) acknowledgement from Westminster City Council regarding the 23 June 2025 removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children without notice, court participation, or medical continuity.

I. What Happened

At 10:18 AM on 24 June 2025, Westminster City Council acknowledged receipt of a detailed Subject Access Request filed by Polly Chromatic. The request sought all records, communications, meeting notes, and risk assessments regarding the removal of her four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — under an Emergency Protection Order issued without warning.

Westminster reclassified the request under the Data Protection Act 2018, denying processing under FOIA 2000. They demanded:

  • Proof of identity

  • Proof of address

  • Full names and dates of birth of the children (already removed)
    They further warned that the request would be closed after three months if the parent failed to comply with ID requests — despite the parent being a known, disabled litigant with active civil and JR proceedings.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Westminster refused FOIA processing despite clear public interest grounds

  • The SAR was delayed through excessive documentation demands

  • The requester was already known to the authority — both legally and procedurally

  • The children were removed without giving their mother access to court or case materials — and now the council demands she provide them

  • The request exposed the council’s intent to obstruct documentation of its own actions

This wasn’t lawful data protection. It was jurisdictional stonewalling by document demand.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because transparency isn’t conditional.
Because children removed from your care shouldn’t require proof of their names to unlock a record.
Because the authority had no trouble finding her on 23 June — yet now pretends she must prove her existence.
Because when silence follows state force, paperwork becomes protest.
Because the archive does not wait 30 days. It files today.

IV. Violations

  • Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Improper reclassification of public-interest request

  • Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–50 – Delay via technical obstruction and failure to consider proportionality

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disregard for known disability and access barriers

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Denial of access to family-related data post-removal

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Exclusion of disabled litigant from legal documentation pathways

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t identity verification. It was strategic delay to stall institutional accountability.
This wasn’t compliance. It was compliance theatre — staged for the purpose of denial.
This wasn’t privacy. It was a record of evasion — and now, it's been archived.

SWANK hereby logs this SAR correspondence as a procedural document of obstruction.
They asked for the children's birthdates.
We’re asking for the names of everyone who authorised the harm.

⟡ 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:

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Subject Access Request Filed for Removal Records — Delayed by Bureaucratic Conditions


⟡ “They Took the Children on June 23rd. I Filed a Subject Access Request on June 24th. Now They Want a Utility Bill.” ⟡
This Wasn’t About Verification. It Was About Delay — Because the Archive Asked for the Truth.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/SAR-REMOVAL-INQUIRY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_Westminster_SubjectAccess_RemovalRecords.pdf
Formal subject access request filed with Westminster City Council for disclosure of all documents, decisions, and communications regarding the removal of four U.S. citizen children from a disabled parent on 23 June 2025.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Westminster City Council following the emergency removal of her four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — on 23 June. The request demanded disclosure of all emails, meeting minutes, officer names, risk assessments, police coordination, and post-event logs related to the action. The SAR was filed in writing, citing public interest, legal action, and international consular involvement.

Westminster responded with standard ID protocols and a disclaimer that the request will not be processed under FOIA 2000, despite containing matters of public administration. The file was reclassified as a DPA 2018 request — delaying statutory timelines until full ID and address verification is received.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Full request for documentation surrounding a child removal event was formally filed

  • Westminster reclassified the request to avoid FOIA transparency requirements

  • The council cited ID protocols despite known disability, legal status, and public interest

  • No internal timeline was confirmed, and the burden of proof was returned to the victim

  • The SAR now functions not only as a request — but as evidence of institutional evasion

This wasn’t a transparency mechanism. It was a bureaucracy loop dressed in GDPR language.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when the archive asks for receipts, the council reaches for red tape.
Because safeguarding actions can’t be secret while being funded publicly and protected institutionally.
Because “your case is active” is not a reason to withhold — it’s a reason to disclose immediately.
Because no parent should have to chase paperwork after losing children to an invisible order.
Because SWANK doesn’t just wait. It files. Logs. Publishes. Publicly.

IV. Violations

  • Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–50 – Delay in fulfilling SAR without clarification or justified exemption

  • Freedom of Information Act 2000, Section 1(1) – Improper rejection of public interest content under SAR pretext

  • Article 15 GDPR – Right of access obstructed by reclassification tactics

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Barriers imposed on disabled litigant attempting to access institutional records

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Access to family-related documentation denied post-removal

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t about safeguarding. It was about shielding institutional actors from lawful scrutiny.
This wasn’t document control. It was information delay weaponised against a disabled parent.
This wasn’t good governance. It was procedural insulation — and we filed it.

SWANK hereby archives this Subject Access Request not just as a demand — but as evidence of public body resistance to disclosure after unlawful child removal.
They will ask for proof of ID.
We will keep the proof of harm.

⟡ 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:

They Gave the Data. But Not the Accountability.


⟡ He Encrypted the Files — But the Pattern Was Already Public. ⟡
A Subject Access Request response, wrapped in digital protocol, lacking all human accountability.

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-05
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_Email_Westminster_SARResponse_SamBrownEncrypted.pdf
Sam Brown’s official reply to a lawful Subject Access Request, confirming receipt and response via encrypted attachment, cc’d to Kirsty Hornal — the very actor named in multiple misconduct filings.

I. What Happened

A formal Subject Access Request was submitted.
Sam Brown responded with impeccable encryption — and absolutely no reference to the underlying complaints.
The reply is procedural, not protective.
Sanitised, sealed, and silent.
It acknowledges nothing, says very little, and still manages to implicate everything.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That Westminster responded to a SAR with encryption, not clarity

  • That Kirsty Hornal — a named party in multiple complaints — was cc’d without explanation

  • That the institution was fully aware of ongoing litigation and misconduct allegations

  • That digital security was prioritised over institutional accountability

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when misconduct is cc’d, it becomes a record.
Because encryption does not hide intention — it delays exposure.
And because silence in response to wrongdoing is not compliance. It’s consent.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Procedural Obfuscation in Public Records Handling

  • Conflict of Interest by Involving Named Parties

  • Administrative Deflection in Response to Legal Inquiry

  • Failure to Address Allegations While Appearing Compliant

  • Institutional Circularity in Handling Accountability

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t about the files. It’s about the formatting.
You don’t cc someone under complaint and call it transparency.
You don’t encrypt the truth and call it safeguarding.
This isn’t a document release — it’s a cover letter for cowardice.

⟡ 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:

The Clock Hasn’t Started Because You Haven’t Jumped Through Our Hoops Yet


⟡ “We Can't Process Your Data Request Until You Prove You Exist — Again.” ⟡
Metropolitan Police Refuses to Process Subject Access Request Until Additional ID and Address Documentation Are Resubmitted

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/ROA-REJECT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_Letter_MPS_ROARequest_Rejected_ProcedureDelay.pdf
Summary: MPS formally rejects processing of a Right of Access request, citing insufficient ID/address verification. The 30-day response timeline will not begin until further documents are received.

I. What Happened

On 17 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (Noelle Simlett) submitted a Right of Access request to the MPS under the Data Protection Act 2018.

On 23 May 2025, the MPS issued this formal response stating:

– They cannot proceed without additional proof of address (dated within the last 6 months)
– They require further proof of identity
– For third-party data (children, other adults), formal authority documents must be supplied
– The 30-day processing clock will not start until documentation is resubmitted

They include a link to the third-party consent template and advise against sending original documents.

II. What the Letter Establishes

• The MPS received the request but will not process it until new supporting documentation is sent
• They are invoking procedural delays to defer their data disclosure obligations
• This creates a bureaucratic loop that disproportionately burdens disabled or chronically surveilled individuals
• It demonstrates how the 30-day legal deadline is effectively paused by agency discretion
• The rejection email becomes a tactical time reset that obscures state data retention and use

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how denial hides in delay.
Because rejecting a legal access request on formality does not erase the request — it reveals resistance.
Because when the law says “you must respond in 30 days,” and the state replies “only if we say the request is valid,” that’s a power play — not a protection.

SWANK documents when access is denied not in law, but in logistics.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that legal rights to data are conditional on resubmitting what was already provided.
We do not accept that timelines can be paused at the institution’s convenience.
We do not accept that access to truth should be procedurally fragile.

This wasn’t a refusal. It was a stall.
And SWANK will archive every attempt to timeout your request into invisibility.

⟡ 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:

Digital-Only ≠ Access — When a Portal Becomes a Barrier


⟡ Postal, Please: A SAR, but Make It Tangible ⟡

“I therefore require the SAR response to be sent in physical printed format.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/SAR-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_SAR_RBKC_PostalDeliveryRequest.pdf
A formal request to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for hard-copy delivery of a Subject Access Request, citing disability rights and procedural accessibility.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., wrote to RBKC’s Data Protection Teamregarding SAR Ref: 15106629. The request was simple: comply with UK GDPR Article 15 and deliver the SAR in physical form by post.

Why? Because encrypted portals and restricted digital formats violate her medically mandated written-only policy.

No fuss. No fight. Just typography that files before they can forget.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Assertion of GDPR-compliant access under documented disability

  • Clear rejection of digital-only coercion in SAR delivery

  • A preemptive record of accessibility expectation

  • RBKC now fully on notice — and fully in the archive

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because institutions love to pretend they didn’t know.
This document removes the luxury of forgetting.

Before they deny the accommodation, before they send an inaccessible email, before they claim “we didn’t realise” — this letter sits waiting. With the date. With the law. With the address.

This isn’t drama.
It’s procedural choreography.
And it’s filed.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept SAR responses hidden behind login walls.
We do not accept exclusion-by-format.
We do not accept "access" that requires a portal and a prayer.

We accept hard copy.
We accept law.
And we accept receipts.

This one’s already printed.
Theirs better be.⟡ 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:

Because If You're Going To Violate My Rights, At Least Alphabetise the Paperwork


🎩 Subject Access Request: A Formal Demand for Personal Records Under UK GDPR

Date: 13 March 2025

✉️ To:

The Data Protection Team
Westminster City Council
64 Victoria Street
London, SW1E 6QP
Email: dataprotection@westminster.gov.uk

🖋️ Subject:

Subject Access Request – Full Disclosure Under UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018

🏛️ Dear Data Protection Team,

I trust this correspondence finds you amid a flourishing garden of properly maintained records and legally compliant filing cabinets.

I am writing — with the appropriate mixture of solemnity and suspicion — to lodge a Subject Access Request under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. As you are doubtless aware, these are not aspirational suggestions, but binding statutory instruments.

📜 I. Details for Identification and Retrieval of Records

  • Full Name: Polly Chromatic

  • Date of Birth: 16 January 1980

  • Address: 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London, W2 6PP

(Should further clarification be required, I stand ready — reluctantly — to assist.)

🔎 II. Scope of Request (Comprehensive, Not Curated)

I hereby request, with neither apology nor patience for omissions:

  • All case notes, internal memos, safeguarding records, and reports

  • All emails and correspondence, whether internal or external, in which my name, case, or circumstances are referenced

  • All meeting minutes, safeguarding discussions, team debriefs, and administrative conjecture featuring me

  • Any communications pertaining to or arising from the activities of social workers assigned to my case

NB: I require the full archive. I am not requesting an executive summary or an editorialised novella. Spare me the temptation of complaint escalation.

💾 III. Format of Disclosure

Please provide all materials electronically — unless, of course, Westminster intends to revive the Victorian tradition of parchment and twine.

Should there be any costs associated with fulfilling your statutory duty, kindly advise in advance so I may summon an appropriately melodramatic sigh.

⚖️ IV. Exemptions and Withholdings

If you intend to withhold any records, kindly supply:

  • A detailed written justification

  • Clear legal citations

  • An explanation sufficiently robust to withstand both Ombudsman scrutiny and polite derision

⏳ V. Identification and Response Timeframe

Enclosed is a copy of my passport, for your peace of mind (and so we may dispense with the inevitable delay tactic).

In accordance with UK GDPR, I expect full compliance within one calendar month from the date of receipt.

Please confirm receipt of this request without unnecessary ceremony.

📢 Closing Sentiment

Thank you, in advance, for what I hope will be a rare and dazzling exhibition of procedural competence. I await my data — and perhaps, a fleeting glimpse of Westminster at its best.

Yours, with bureaucratic decorum strained almost to breaking,
Polly


No comments:

Yes, We Have the Records — And No, You Can’t See Them Yet.


⟡ “We Acknowledge Your Request. We Will Not Proceed Until You Prove Who You Are Again.” ⟡
Westminster Council Confirms It Holds the Records — But Imposes Identification Conditions Before Starting the Clock

Filed: 30 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-30_SWANK_Email_Westminster_SAR_Acknowledgement_Request40092693.pdf
Summary: Westminster City Council acknowledges a subject access request for social care case files and confirms the data is protected under the DPA — not FOI — delaying the start of the 30-day deadline until ID is re-submitted.

I. What Happened

On 22 May 2025, a subject access request was submitted to Westminster Council for all internal records between 1 February 2024 and 31 May 2025 related to you and your children, including communications about legal claims, safeguarding referrals, and retaliatory actions.

On 30 May 2025, Westminster responded: the request was valid, but would not be processed under FOI — only under the Data Protection Act 2018. They requested ID documents for both you and your children and stated that the 30-day response clock would not begin until those were received. They also warned the case would be closed after three months if documents were not submitted.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Westminster does not deny possession of highly sensitive internal communications and safeguarding records
• The Council uses data protection protocols to create delay before disclosure
• There is no proactive safeguarding triage — just a compliance procedure requiring identity re-validation
• The burden to unlock the records is fully placed on the subject — not the holder of the harm
• Institutional data control becomes a form of evidentiary power: the facts exist, but remain sealed
• This email affirms that case notes, internal emails, Mosaic logs, and legal mentions are held — but protected

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is the confirmation that the archive exists — and the bureaucracy surrounding it is not neutral.
Because while you are litigating discrimination and harm, the data needed to prove it is put behind a timed portal that the state controls.
Because when the Council holds your life’s receipts and makes you ask twice — that’s not privacy. It’s procedural superiority.

SWANK logs not just what they say — but what they delay.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that public records can be sequestered behind repeat ID hurdles while retaliation continues.
We do not accept that data control should be used to delay evidence access during live proceedings.
We do not accept that the Council’s timeline supersedes the urgency of the harm done.

This wasn’t data protection. This was gatekeeping.
And SWANK will archive every threshold they install.

⟡ 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 Can See It — Briefly. If You Don’t Blink.


⟡ “We Have the Records — Please Log In, Before the Link Expires.” ⟡
RBKC Confirms Possession of Personal and Safeguarding Data, But Restricts Access to a 7-Day Portal

Filed: 30 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-30_SWANK_Email_RBKC_SAR_Acknowledgement_Request15106629.pdf
Summary: RBKC confirms receipt of a subject access request and initiates a 7-day secure delivery window via expiring link, affirming data sensitivity and control.

I. What Happened

On 30 May 2025, RBKC responded to your Subject Access Request for internal communications, safeguarding referrals, and legal retaliation data. Instead of issuing a full response, they initiated a secure, password-protected portal with a 7-day expiry limit.

The email contains no reference to content, timeline for full release, or appeal options — just a time-sensitive window to engage with whatever may be inside.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC acknowledges holding sensitive data related to your case
• Data delivery is governed by expiring, portal-based access, not PDF or email disclosure
• No summary of what will be made available is provided
• The structure limits recordkeeping, continuity, and independent archival access
• Even lawful access is mediated through short-lived technical platforms

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what controlled disclosure looks like: acknowledgement wrapped in encryption, boxed in expiry.
Because institutional transparency isn’t transparency when it expires in 7 days.
Because the data being “yours” means little when the system decides how, when, and for how long you can see it.

SWANK records not just whether they answered — but how they concealed the answer within protocol.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that subject access means platform-restricted, time-expiring visibility.
We do not accept that safeguarding records should be handled like secrets, seen briefly and forgotten.
We do not accept that expiration is an acceptable condition for compliance.

This wasn’t release. This was containment with a countdown.
And SWANK will remember what the portal is designed to make you forget.⟡ 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:

Subject Access Request – Request for Full Disclosure of Personal Data Held by RBKC


🦚 Subject Access Request – Request for Full Disclosure of Personal Data Held by RBKC

Filed under the documentation of data rights assertion, administrative accountability, and constitutional expectation.

12 March 2025
To:
The Information Management Team
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)
Email: DataProtection@rbkc.gov.uk

Subject: Subject Access Request – Request for Full Disclosure of Personal Data Held by RBKC

📜 Dear Information Management Team,

I write to you in the full and formal exercise of my rights under:

  • The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR);

  • The Data Protection Act 2018,

to submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) for all personal data held by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) relating to myself.

I trust that, despite past institutional experience,
this request will be met with the dignity, discretion, and efficiency owed to the public it serves.

📚 Details of the Data Subject

  • Full Name: Polly Chromatic

  • Date of Birth: 16 January 1980

📜 Scope of Request — Full and Unabridged Disclosure Requested

I hereby request complete copies of all personal data held about me, specifically including:

✔ All records held by RBKC Social Services — assessments, case notes, professional correspondence;
✔ All interdepartmental communications referencing me — emails, minutes, internal memos;
✔ All safeguarding discussions, decisions, and referrals concerning my case;
✔ All correspondence involving social workers, managers, consultants where I am referenced;
✔ A full list of third parties to whom my data has been disclosed, including the legal bases for such disclosures.

Should any material be withheld,
I expect a precise legal justification citing specific exemptions under the Data Protection Act 2018 —
not procedural obfuscation.

📚 Preferred Format for Disclosure

  • Electronic format via email

  • For accessibility, archival integrity, and speed of delivery.

Should an alternative be deemed necessary, I expect proposals to be submitted without delay.

📜 Verification of Identity

I am prepared to provide verification documents promptly upon request.
Kindly specify:

  • Which documents are required;

  • How they should be transmitted securely.

Let us hope such verification does not become an administrative oubliette.

📬 Response Timeframe

Under Article 12(3) UK GDPR, you are obligated to respond:

  • Within one calendar month of receipt.

I request written confirmation of:

  • Receipt of this request;

  • The timeline for full disclosure.

📜 Closing Remarks

I thank you — with cautious optimism — for your attention to this matter.

One expects that a borough bearing such an esteemed postcode
will aspire to match its geography with procedural excellence.

📜 Yours sincerely,

Polly
No comments: