⟡ “We Don’t Owe You Access Just Because You Ignore Our Lawyer.” ⟡
An email reasserting medical boundaries, legal representation, and refusal to tolerate further intrusion
Filed: 9 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/CP-CONFERENCE-BREACH
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-09_SWANK_Email_Westminster_CPLawyerBoundaryRefusal.pdf
Forwarded legal correspondence documenting refusal to cooperate with unjustified visits amid illness and legal escalation
I. What Happened
On 9 October 2024, Polly Chromatic forwarded a lawyer’s unanswered email to multiple Westminster Council officials and Metropolitan Police contacts. The message demanded that all communications go through legal counsel and reasserted medical and family boundaries.
Despite the presence of a lawyer, a confirmed disability, and multiple medical crises affecting the family, Westminster social workers continued attempting home visits. The forwarded message made clear: entry would be refused unless proper legal procedure and respectful engagement were observed.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Procedural breaches: Repeated refusal to answer legal counsel; bypassing disability adjustments
Human impact: Interference with medical care, disruption of chronic illness recovery, destabilisation of children during critical appointments
Power dynamics: Weaponising visit frequency and statutory language to override both legal process and health needs
Institutional failure: Failure to pause involvement despite stated medical incapacity, legal escalation, and child refusal
Unacceptable conduct: Assuming entitlement to enter homes while ignoring lawyer-led negotiation
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the law was already involved — and they didn’t care.
Because every single one of these professionals received that lawyer’s message and chose to press on.
Because no one should have to say “we are sick, our lawyer has emailed you, please leave us alone” more than once.
Because this wasn’t oversight — it was orchestration.
This archive entry confirms what Westminster still won’t admit: they treat illness, representation, and resistance as inconvenience.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – ignoring written-only communication needs; discrimination by omission
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – undermining the welfare of children through procedural harassment
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – unlawful interference with family life and privacy
Professional standards (SWE & local authority) – ignoring legal representation; ethical disregard for disability context
V. SWANK’s Position
You don’t get to bypass the law just because you don’t like the lawyer.
SWANK does not accept that professionals can ignore representation and pursue intrusion under the guise of concern.
We do not accept that families recovering from sewer gas exposure must choose between health and harassment.
We do not accept that disability, litigation, and refusal justify increased scrutiny.
This entry stands as proof: Westminster professionals were fully informed.
They proceeded anyway.
And now, their coordination is a matter of public record.
⟡ 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.