⟡ “Before We Can Investigate Medical Harm, Please Investigate Your Filing System.” ⟡
When the Ombudsman’s First Concern is Paperwork, Not Pain
Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/PHSO/INTAKE-DELAY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Reply_PHSO_ComplaintFormRequest_ChelseaAndGuys.pdf
The PHSO responds to a formal complaint of NHS abuse and discrimination by requesting resubmission of evidence — with no acknowledgement of content or urgency.
I. What Happened
On 4 June 2025, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) — via Intake Caseworker Sue Ellis — replied to Polly Chromatic’s formal complaint regarding medical abuse by Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust.
The response did not refer to the substance of the complaint. It made no mention of the N1 civil claim, the documented evidence, or the trauma described. Instead, the reply simply stated that the complaint cannot proceed unless:
Copies of all hospital responses are resubmitted, and
A new complaint form is completed and returned.
No deadlines were offered. No triage. No contact from the team handling clinical discrimination. Just a downloadable Word doc.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The PHSO received a complaint about serious NHS misconduct involving disability discrimination, safeguarding misuse, and clinical negligence
The immediate response was not triage, not inquiry, not empathy — but admin demand
No attempt to acknowledge prior efforts or existing legal submissions
A structurally disempowering tactic: force victims of trauma to repackage their trauma
Silence on the underlying abuses, while elevating form logistics as procedural gatekeeping
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when someone reports prolonged harm by multiple NHS Trusts — including unlawful sedation, safeguarding retaliation, and active discrimination — and the Ombudsman responds with “please resubmit the documents,” we are no longer dealing with oversight. We are dealing with institutional formatting as deflection.
This was not accountability.
This was recordkeeping theatre.
This was medical injustice queued behind a Word document.
IV. Violations
Human Rights Act 1998 – Failure to take allegations of discrimination and abuse seriously
Equality Act 2010 – Indirect discrimination by obstructing disabled complainants with excessive administrative requirements
Patients’ Rights Charter – Failure to treat complaints with seriousness and timeliness
Public Sector Equality Duty – Failure to identify or address systemic harm indicators
NHS Complaints Regulations – Delay in referral without due assessment
V. SWANK’s Position
SWANK does not accept a model of oversight where abuse must be copy-pasted into compliance before it is believed. The Ombudsman is not a typist. Nor should survivors be treated as clerical assistants to their own complaints.
This wasn’t intake.
It was a procedural stall dressed in polite Helvetica.
And SWANK will log every delay, every silence, and every form-forwarded injustice.
⟡ 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.