⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – TRI-BOROUGH LSCP ⟡
Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/TRI-BOROUGH/LSCP-2025
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-113_TriBoroughLSCP_SafeguardingMisuseDisabilityDiscrimination.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint submitted to the Tri-Borough Local Safeguarding Children Partnership (LSCP) — covering Westminster, RBKC, and Hammersmith & Fulham — regarding the systemic misuse of safeguarding powers, procedural retaliation, and disregard for disability accommodations. This marks the first multi-agency submission in SWANK’s Safeguarding Misuse & Retaliation Sequence, establishing jurisdictional misconduct as a shared municipal habit rather than isolated error.
I. What Happened
On 18 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) filed a written complaint to the Tri-Borough LSCP, naming both Westminster Children’s Services and RBKC Children’s Services as complicit in sustained safeguarding misuse.
The complaint alleged:
• Repeated retaliatory escalation of Child in Need (CIN) and Public Law Outline (PLO) procedures following protected complaints.
• Failure to apply medically confirmed written-only communication adjustments in direct contravention of the Equality Act 2010.
• Disregard of clinical diagnoses including eosinophilic asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, and panic disorder.
• Misrepresentation of home-educated children’s wellbeing, despite documented academic success and positive social worker reports.
• Absence of lawful threshold for continued safeguarding intrusion.
The submission concluded that safeguarding frameworks had been weaponised — that “protection” had become the institutional language of persecution.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That safeguarding procedures were repeatedly mobilised as retaliatory mechanisms rather than welfare measures.
• That disability discrimination has become embedded in the tri-borough safeguarding culture.
• That the failure of multi-agency communication constitutes not accident but method.
• That medical documentation, once ignored, transforms safeguarding into assault by appointment.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To preserve the first instance of multi-agency accountability escalation under the SWANK Evidentiary Charter.
• To demonstrate the structural continuity of safeguarding misuse across borough lines.
• To establish a public record that retaliation is not protection, and intrusion is not care.
• Because when three councils form one silence, the archive must speak instead.
IV. Legal & Regulatory Framework
Statutes Invoked:
• Equality Act 2010 — ss. 15, 19, 20, and 27 (discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate).
• Children Act 1989 — ss. 17 and 47 (misuse of welfare and safeguarding powers).
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Arts. 6, 8, and 14 (fair process, family life, and equality).
Oversight Authorities Referenced:
• Tri-Borough LSCP (multi-agency review request)
• Social Work England (professional accountability)
• Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (maladministration jurisdiction)
• Equality and Human Rights Commission (systemic discrimination inquiry)
V. SWANK’s Position
“When safeguarding forgets who it serves, it becomes surveillance.”
SWANK London Ltd. holds that the Tri-Borough safeguarding partnership has collapsed into ritualised dysfunction — a theatre of concern masking procedural aggression.
The complaint therefore operates as both petition and post-mortem, dissecting the anatomy of a safeguarding system that harms under the banner of help.
It is not merely a document; it is a mirror placed in front of a multi-agency machine that forgot its reflection.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because safeguarding deserves scrutiny.
And harm deserves record.