“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 UK GDPR Violation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK GDPR Violation. Show all posts

They Called It Security. We Called It Retaliation. — SAR Denied, Accuracy Breached, ICO Notified


⟡ Complaint Filed: Data Misuse and Access Denial Logged with ICO ⟡

“They encrypted what they shouldn’t. They withheld what they couldn’t. And they blamed it on care.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/ICO/DATA-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_ICO_DataComplaint_Westminster_PembridgeVillas_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
A formal data protection complaint submitted to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) citing SAR denial, inaccurate records, and disability-based access obstruction by Pembridge Villas Surgery and Westminster City Council. Legal citations include UK GDPR Articles 5, 12, 15, 16, and 21.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a formal complaint to the ICO, naming:

  • Pembridge Villas Surgery (Dr. Philip Reid) for inaccurate, uncorrected medical entries

  • Westminster City Council for denying SAR access on discriminatory grounds

  • The use of email encryption despite a written-only medical adjustment prohibiting it

  • Ongoing refusal to provide records related to civil claims, medical care, and safeguarding misuse

The complaint asserts multiple breaches of UK GDPR, including:

  • Article 5 – Accuracy

  • Article 12 – Transparent communication

  • Article 15 – Right of access

  • Article 16 – Right to rectification

  • Article 21 – Right to object (especially on medical adjustment grounds)

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That two institutional actors are cited for data-related harm

  • That disability adjustments were actively ignored, violated, and used to justify silence

  • That inaccurate records remain uncorrected — despite multiple formal notifications

  • That ICO is now on record as regulator with jurisdictional notice from the harmed party

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the denial of access is not administrative — it’s structural.
Because inaccurate records are not mistakes — they’re strategy.
Because what Westminster calls “encrypted” is what we call withheld, delayed, and buried.

The ICO may call it a breach.
We call it a pattern.
And now it’s filed — precisely, fully, and in public.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept encryption as camouflage.
We do not accept “accuracy” defined by those who retaliate.
We do not accept SAR denials dressed up as medical concern.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If they won’t let you access the file,
We build our own.
If they rewrite the record,
We publish the one they tried to bury.
And if data law is violated with a smile,
We time-stamp the grin.

⟡ 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