“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 Unsafe NHS Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unsafe NHS Care. Show all posts

Three Providers. Zero Care. One Complaint Filed with CQC. — Unsafe Practice Isn’t an Anomaly. It’s the Pattern.


⟡ Unsafe Care and Discrimination Complaint Filed with CQC ⟡

“They called it care. But what they delivered was silence, obstruction, and harm. Now the regulator has it in writing.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/CQC/CARE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_CQC_Complaint_UnsafeCare_Discrimination_NHSProviders.pdf
A formal complaint to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) regarding unsafe care and systemic discrimination by Pembridge Villas Surgery, Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, and Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. The submission cites breaches of statutory care duties, disability rights, and CQC-registered provider obligations.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., filed a formal complaint with the Care Quality Commission, naming:

  • Pembridge Villas Surgery (Dr. Philip Reid)

  • Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust

  • Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

The complaint documents:

  • Repeated denial of a written-only medical adjustment

  • Refusal to accommodate severe eosinophilic asthma and muscle dysphonia

  • Discriminatory care withdrawal following legal filings

  • Complicity in triggering retaliatory safeguarding procedures

  • Neglect of statutory duty under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and CQC Fundamental Standards

The filing includes references to:

  • Ongoing complaints to PHSO, GMC, ICB, and ICO

  • A £23 million civil claim

  • A live Judicial Review challenging retaliatory safeguarding actions

  • SWANK documentation as evidentiary archive

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That three CQC-regulated providers are formally named in a statutory breach complaint

  • That unsafe care was both procedural and deliberate

  • That discrimination was not incidental — it was embedded in access policy and delivery

  • That the regulator now holds recorded jurisdictional responsibility

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when care collapses into control,
When refusal is framed as policy,
And when the record is more coherent than the treatment plan —
The archive steps in.

This is not a service complaint.
This is a public record of medical retaliation.
And it now lives in the jurisdictional file of England’s care regulator.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept care that punishes disability.
We do not accept providers who disable access and call it compliance.
We do not accept harm renamed as “standard procedure.”

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If care is withdrawn for speaking out,
We speak louder.
If the regulators delay,
We document the delay.
And if the NHS harms in silence,
We file the noise.

⟡ 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