“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 access to redress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label access to redress. Show all posts

⟡ Chromatic v The Ombudsman: On the Auto-Performance of Due Process ⟡


⟡ The Complaint Acknowledgement That Isn’t ⟡
"Your grievance has been successfully ignored — please hold."

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/PHSO/AUTO-REPLY-FAILURE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_PHSO_AutoReplyComplaint.pdf
Auto-response from PHSO confirming receipt of complaint C-2161195, with no substantive engagement.

I. What Happened
On 4 June 2025 at 14:04, an auto-generated email was sent from Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk to confirm receipt of a formal complaint (Ref: C-2161195). The complainant, writing under their legal name, had submitted correspondence related to serious procedural failures. The PHSO replied with a non-specific auto-response that offered no recognition of content, context, or urgency — merely generic links and bureaucratic driftwood.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • ⟡ Total absence of human recognition despite live complaint case

  • ⟡ Failure to triage or acknowledge the nature of the submission

  • ⟡ Normalisation of delay through pre-emptive disclaimers (e.g., “15 working days”)

  • ⟡ Power asymmetry preserved through depersonalised automation

  • ⟡ Structural abdication disguised as protocol

This is not acknowledgement. It is administrative smoke.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because even the digital receipt of a formal grievance must be archived — especially when it reveals the mechanical contempt that defines British redress infrastructure. This isn’t a failure to reply. It is a policy of non-recognition. Such automated performances of ‘accessibility’ are designed to reduce pressure, not resolve injustice. SWANK considers each such missive a specimen of procedural pantomime.

IV. Violations

  • Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Act 1993 (s.3: duty to investigate maladministration)

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 (Right to a fair hearing)

  • Equality Act 2010, s.149 (Public Sector Equality Duty — procedural fairness and access)

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t triage. It was deferral.
This wasn’t acknowledgement. It was filtration.
SWANK does not accept the rebranding of delay as “standard procedure.”
Every “auto-reply” becomes part of the record. Every sidestep, a signal.


⟡ 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