⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Exclusion, Misuse, and the Automated Curtain Call
In re Chromatic v. Westminster & RBKC, On the Jurisdictional Theatre of Procedural Misuse and the Ombudsman’s Unread Reply
📎 Metadata
Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference Code: SWL-EX-0626-PHSO-JURISDICTION-BLOCK
Court File Name: 2025-06-26_SWANK_Complaint_PHSO_SafeguardingProcessMisuse_JurisdictionalExclusion
1-line summary: PHSO formally notified of procedural misuse and jurisdictional conflict; responded with default auto-reply offering paper forms and helpline hours.
I. What Happened
On 26 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal safeguarding complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) concerning:
Procedural misuse by Westminster and RBKC
Deliberate exclusion of a litigant in person from safeguarding decision-making
Collusion between agencies while civil and judicial review claims were pending
Undermining of disability accommodations and jurisdictional standing
The Ombudsman’s reply was immediate — and utterly useless:
A template of hyperlinks, apology boilerplate, and invitation to complete their process again, elsewhere, with better handwriting.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That jurisdictional conflict was used not as a legal error, but a tool of exclusion
That active safeguarding measures were imposed against medical evidence and legal filings
That the PHSO has now been formally notified of this misuse
That their reply reflects a bureaucratic ritual of sympathetic unreadability
You may file your trauma.
You may not expect it to be read.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because procedural exclusion is the most elegant cruelty of state systems.
Because sending a form response to a litigant stripped of representation is not merely delay — it is doctrine.
Because when children are removed, courts are ignored, and complaints are funneled into email auto-responses, we are no longer witnessing incompetence. We are witnessing design.
SWANK logs this exchange not as grievance, but as ritual evidence of the ceremonial closure of access.
IV. Violations and Institutional Failure
Safeguarding misuse through exclusion of parental legal standing
Jurisdictional manipulation to override international and civil filings
Failure to respond substantively to crisis escalation
Template-based erasure of formal legal substance
PHSO’s reply was not neutral.
It was strategically disengaged.
V. SWANK’s Position
This complaint may one day sit in a file marked "resolved without action."
But in the archive of harm, it reads differently:
It is a warning.
When oversight bodies reduce jurisdictional conflict to Braille form options and online PDFs, they are not regulating harm — they are translating it into polite refusal.
SWANK London Ltd marks this moment not as a plea for change — but as archival indictment.
You were informed.
You ignored it.
We filed that too.