⟡ The Stage 2 That Demands Gratitude for Noticing Your Email Signature ⟡
“You redirected us. We took it personally.”
Filed: 20 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/STAGE2-ACCESS-FAILURE-192
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-20_SWANK_RBKC_Stage2Complaint_EmailAcknowledgement.pdf
RBKC confirms receipt of an auto-response from SWANK directing correspondence to the correct archive address and requests confirmation before continuing the investigation.
⟡ Chromatic v RBKC: On the Bureaucratic Reframing of Access as Obstruction ⟡
RBKC, Stage 2 complaint, email misdirection, access boundary, written-only adjustment, procedural delay, investigation threat, retaliation choreography
I. What Happened
On 20 June 2025, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) issued a formal email concerning the Stage 2 complaint investigation submitted by Polly Chromatic. They noted that the assigned Investigating Officers attempted contact on 16 June but received an auto-response redirecting all correspondence to director@swanklondon.com — the publicly stated, disability-compliant contact address for legal matters.
Rather than proceeding, RBKC paused the investigation and requested written confirmation that this was indeed the preferred email, despite having already used it. The message included a gentle threat: “We can only investigate your complaint with your cooperation.”
II. What the Message Establishes
⟡ Refusal to honour a clearly established access boundary without re-confirmation
⟡ Disability adjustment treated as a conditional inconvenience
⟡ Stage 2 investigation effectively paused unless access is re-performed
⟡ Implied blame — procedural integrity rests on the complainant’s ‘cooperation’
⟡ Auto-response from SWANK reframed as institutional offence
This was not clarification. It was re-qualification of access.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when an authority demands confirmation of an access address it is already using, it is not verifying — it is performing control. RBKC cannot claim confusion. The redirect was issued by design, from a platform built to enforce clarity and jurisdictional record. This isn’t correspondence difficulty. It is archival resistance.
SWANK does not re-confirm what is already structurally declared.
We log the institutional discomfort with being directed instead of obeyed.
IV. Procedural and Ethical Failures
Equality Act 2010 – failure to respect ongoing reasonable adjustments
Retaliation pattern – pause in complaint handling conditional on secondary access confirmation
GDPR concern – refusal to process sensitive material unless platform is re-authorised, despite prior notice
Public body boundary breach – failure to engage respectfully with a legal archive address
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t confirmation. It was petulance.
This wasn’t verification. It was control theatre.
SWANK does not consent to re-justifying established access systems.
We do not accept threats of investigative pause based on email etiquette.
And we will never re-request the right to use our own archive.
⟡ 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.