⟡ They Received the Request. They Sent Encryption. ⟡
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/2025-SAR-DELAY
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_RBKC_FCS_SARDisclosure_Delay_EncryptedReply_NoDataSupplied.pdf
I. A Portal. A Password. And Still No Records.
This document marks RBKC Family and Children’s Services’ acknowledgement of a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the UK GDPR and Equality Act 2010.
But let’s be clear:
No data was disclosed
No timeline was confirmed
No explanation for prior failures was included
Instead, they sent:
An encrypted email
A vague assurance
And an electronic shrug, stamped “secure”
When the portal opens and nothing’s inside,
you haven’t complied — you’ve stalled with style.
II. When Delay Becomes Doctrine
This is not administrative lag.
This is a tactical interval, used to:
Avoid accountability
Rebuild institutional defences
And run down the clock on pending litigation
They received:
A lawful request
A legal deadline
A disability notice
And replied with:
Encryption and zero actual disclosure.
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because encryption is not transparency.
Because delays in data are delays in justice.
Because SARs are not inbox ornaments — they are legally binding demands from individuals demanding what’s already theirs.
Let the record show:
The request was made
The deadline clock began
The file was empty
And SWANK — filed that too
This isn’t a response.
It’s procedural static disguised as security.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not permit digital deflection to stand in for legal compliance.
We do not consider a password an answer.
We do not believe that “portal access” meets the standard of disability-informed disclosure obligations.
Let the record show:
They received the request.
They encrypted the silence.
And SWANK — decrypted the stall for public record.