⟡ The Statutory Slow-Walk ⟡
“We acknowledge receipt of your collapse — please wait 65 working days.”
Filed: 5 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/STATUTORY-OBFUSCATION-82
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-05_SWANK_RBKC_StatutoryComplaintResponse.pdf
RBKC responds to Ombudsman referral with theatrical formality, commissioning a Stage 2 investigation timed to outlast relevance.
⟡ Chromatic v RBKC: On the Ritual Performance of Accountability Without Urgency ⟡
RBKC, Westminster, statutory complaint, stage 2 performance, 65-day delay, procedural theatre, Ombudsman interference
I. What Happened
On 5 June 2025, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea issued a reply acknowledging receipt of a formal complaint escalated to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman. In baroque administrative style, they re-confirmed their intention to conduct a Stage 2 statutory investigation, assigning Investigating Officer Sharon Mair and Independent Person Baljit Nijjar. These figures — allegedly neutral — would, we are told, write in due course to “ascertain” the complaint already filed.
The real twist: the investigation cannot begin until the claimant (Polly Chromatic) appends her signature to a "Statement of Complaint" document that has not yet been drafted. The countdown of 65 working days will begin only once this theatrical artifact is received.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
⟡ The use of 'Stage 2' as deferment theatre — complaint acknowledged, not investigated
⟡ Weaponised bureaucracy — procedural steps designed to delay substantive response
⟡ Faux-independence — the ‘Independent Person’ remains structurally dependent on the commissioning authority
⟡ Linguistic sidestepping — “introduce themselves,” “inform you how they will proceed,” “hope you find this helpful”
⟡ Failure to respect urgency or procedural entanglement with Ombudsman oversight
This is not resolution. This is a paper chase.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because "statutory investigation" should not mean theatrical delay. SWANK logs every moment where a complaint is reduced to a script, and every case where bureaucratic ritual is used to preserve institutional face. When access to redress is contingent on agreeing to someone else's version of your own grievance — that is not a complaint process. It is complaint choreography.
And it must be archived.
IV. Violations
Local Authority Social Services Complaints (England) Regulations 2006 – failure to act promptly under Stage 2
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 13 – right to an effective remedy
Equality Act 2010, s.149 – Public Sector Equality Duty: failure to treat written-only access needs with urgency
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t investigation. It was invocation.
This wasn’t accountability. It was affect.
SWANK does not recognise the alibi of “process not yet commenced” when escalation has already been forced by institutional failure.
If you cannot respond within a decade of documented harm, your countdown does not count.
⟡ 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.