Showing posts with label ombudsman complaint. Show all posts

Referenced in: G v E [2010] EWCA Civ 822 — When Safeguarding Becomes Surveillance

⟡ “A Sewer of Retaliation — Because Complaints Were Met with Contempt” ⟡

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/OMBUDSMAN/DISABILITY-RETALIATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_Formal_Complaint_PHSO_Disability_Discrimination_Procedural_Retaliation.pdf
Formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman detailing systemic discrimination, retaliatory safeguarding abuse, and deliberate procedural exclusion.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.) submitted a formal written complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The submission documented coordinated misconduct by NHS Trusts, local authority safeguarding bodies, and the Metropolitan Police.

She reported:

Chronic negligent healthcare resulting in severe harm.
Discriminatory denial of treatment and accommodations, despite a confirmed disability.
Retaliatory weaponisation of safeguarding to punish formal complaints.
Procedural exclusion from a Family Court hearing at which an Interim Care Order was imposed without her presence or knowledge.
Deliberate obstruction and cover-up of an environmental hazard (sewer gas exposure) affecting her disabled children.

She requested that all communication be conducted in writing only due to medically substantiated PTSD.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

A multi-agency pattern of procedural retaliation for lawful complaints.
Breaches of statutory disability rights and Equality Act 2010 duties.
Exploitation of safeguarding powers as a tool of intimidation.
Erosion of procedural safeguards, culminating in the forced separation of a disabled mother and her four U.S. citizen children.
Systemic contempt for transparency and accountability obligations.

This was not a collection of isolated failures. It was an orchestrated debasement of process.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the ombudsman is often treated as a ceremonial afterthought, an ill-lit antechamber where institutional failure is diluted to “service issues.”
Because no disabled parent should have to convert trauma into bureaucracy to be heard.
Because “safeguarding” without due process is not protection — it is reprisal.
Because archival clarity is the only antidote to bureaucratic erasure.
And because SWANK will not permit these events to vanish into the grey fog of procedural indifference.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20–21: Duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 6: Right to a fair hearing.
Care Act 2014 — Section 1: Promotion of individual wellbeing.
NHS Constitution — Commitment to dignity, respect, and non-discrimination.

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not safeguarding.
⟡ This was retribution, branded as protection. ⟡
SWANK does not accept the normalisation of retaliatory safeguarding or the bureaucratic laundering of discrimination.
We will document every act of contempt. Every time.

⟡ 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.

When You Weaponise Procedure, the Procedure Becomes the Evidence.

⟡ A Complaint So Clear, Even the Ombudsman Can Understand It ⟡
“You ignored the law. Then you ignored the complaint. But you won’t ignore the record.”

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/LGSCO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_LGSCOComplaint_RBKC-WCC_PLODisabilityBreach.pdf
Formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman detailing retaliatory safeguarding action, disability discrimination, and PLO escalation misuse.

I. What Happened

On 14 April 2025, a PLO letter was issued against a disabled mother of four, despite no findings of harm, neglect, or statutory breach after a year-long investigation.
That letter was sent just two months after she reported a social worker to police.

This complaint, filed on 23 April 2025, details a pattern of:

Retaliation following legal disclosures
Procedural misuse of safeguarding frameworks
Disability discrimination under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010
Obstruction of closure and refusal to release lawful records
Repeated refusal to implement written-only communication despite clinical documentation

Five statutory requests.
Zero acknowledgements.
And still — no final report.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Misuse of safeguarding and PLO procedures as tools of institutional reprisal
Unlawful escalation against a disabled parent without evidentiary basis
Failure to implement mandated disability accommodations
Breach of procedural justice, transparency, and closure under both the Children Act and GDPR
Entrenched cultural resistance to SEND/EHE families asserting their legal rights

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because retaliatory safeguarding is not a safeguarding concern — it’s a governance concern.
Because forcing a disabled parent to “speak anyway” is not a support plan — it’s statutory misconduct.
Because after exhausting every internal complaint mechanism, the only thing left to escalate is the record itself.

This complaint is not a request for help.
It is a procedural audit in motion.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 breach (failure to implement reasonable adjustments)
Children Act 1989 / 2004 – Procedural failure to justify safeguarding escalation
Human Rights Act 1998 – Interference with private/family life (Article 8), discrimination (Article 14)
Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR – Withholding legally requested assessment and closure documentation
LGSCO Principles of Good Administration – Violated through delay, failure to provide reasons, and abuse of discretion

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not child protection.
It was procedural retaliation.

This was not oversight.
It was reputational damage control disguised as concern.

No findings. No closure. No accountability.
So the complaint became the evidence.
And the record — permanent.

⟡ 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.

A Chronicle of Bureaucratic Ineptitude Dressed Up as Professional Intervention

🏛️ A Formal Petition for Rectification: Westminster Social Services and the Architecture of Institutional Failure

Date: 11 March 2025

✉️ To:

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
PO Box 4771
Coventry, CV4 0EH
Email: advice@lgo.org.uk

🖋️ Subject:

Formal Complaint – Westminster Social Services: Dereliction of Duty, Discriminatory Practice, and Procedural Misconduct

📜 Dear Sir or Madam,

It is with considerable reluctance—and frankly, exhausted formality—that I escalate this matter to your esteemed office, having exhausted every internal remedy Westminster Social Services purports to offer, only to find the door bolted from within.

The conduct in question concerns not singular lapses, but a sustained pattern of negligence, discriminatory practice, and legal abdication, resulting in predictable and preventable harm to myself and my family.

🎓 I. Principal Failings of Westminster Social Services

1. Abdication of Support Responsibilities

Despite numerous formal appeals, Westminster consistently declined to provide the assistance their statutory mandate demands, cloaking their abandonment in administrative vagueness.

2. Procedural Irregularities and Institutional Amnesia

Key decisions were made without consultation, communications were delayed or entirely ignored, and safeguarding obligations were treated as elective, rather than compulsory.

3. Discrimination and Harassment

I have endured treatment that would strain the patience of any rational observer: disability discrimination, racialised microaggressions, and punitive escalation whenever I exercised lawful rights.

4. Coercion and Psychological Manipulation

Far from supporting informed decision-making, Westminster’s tactics served to intimidate, coerce, and undermine—a performance of care belied by its punitive core.

5. Breach of Statutory Duties

Systematic failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010 and Children Act 1989, reducing legal entitlements to optional courtesies—and ignoring them with equal fluency.

🩺 II. Attempts at Local Resolution

I have, in good faith, traversed every labyrinthine corridor Westminster offers to the discontented:

Formal written complaints were lodged.
Medical and legal documentation was provided.
Constructive dialogue was attempted, at considerable personal cost.

The responses received—where they arrived at all—resembled a performance of engagement, devoid of substance, apology, or corrective action.

✨ III. Requested Determinations and Recommendations

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Ombudsman:

Conduct a full investigation into Westminster Social Services’ conduct;
Determine whether breaches of statutory duty occurred and issue findings accordingly;
Recommend mandatory corrective measures, including training in disability rights, safeguarding, and anti-discrimination protocols;
Provide guidance on redress, encompassing financial compensation, procedural reform, and a formal acknowledgment of harm caused.

Enclosed are the relevant supporting materials. Kindly confirm receipt of this complaint and advise on the anticipated timeline for review.

🖋️ Yours, with all due gravitas,

Polly

Decorum is no substitute for accountability

🏛️ A Treatise on Institutional Negligence: A Formal Appeal to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Date: 10 March 2025
To: Complaints Team, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
Address: PO Box 4771, Coventry, CV4 0EH

🎩 Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to you not merely as a concerned citizen, but as an individual compelled — regrettably yet unavoidably — to illuminate the full breadth of dereliction, discrimination, and administrative decay suffered at the hands of Westminster City Council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).

My submission to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman seeks formal redress for conduct that has been not only negligent, but wholly incompatible with the standards of lawful governance in a civilised society.

📜 I. Catalogue of Institutional Failings

The conduct of multiple local government departments has been, in a word, indefensible. In particular:

Westminster and RBKC Social Services, whose operatives initiated baseless interventions while wilfully disregarding my documented disabilities and statutory requests for reasonable adjustments.
RBKC Environmental Health, which despite numerous formal complaints, abjectly failed to investigate or address the presence of toxic sewer gas at my former residence — a matter of public health, not mere private inconvenience.
Westminster City Council, which declined to provide even the most elementary support services under the Equality Act 2010, preferring procedural inertia to lawful obligation.

⚖️ II. Breaches of Statutory and Ethical Obligations

The failures detailed above constitute violations of numerous legislative frameworks, including but by no means limited to:

The Local Government Act 1974, mandating investigation of complaints and delivery of fair public administration — standards left conspicuously unmet.
The Equality Act 2010 (Section 20), wherein the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not merely neglected, but dismissed with visible disdain.
The Housing Act 2004, imposing obligations to rectify habitability risks — obligations your authorities treated as suggestions, not statutes.

🩺 III. Consequences of Neglect

As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these cascading institutional failures, I have endured:

Significant physical deterioration, resulting from prolonged exposure to an uninhabitable and toxic environment.
Persistent emotional distress, caused by unjustified and intrusive social service interventions, more concerned with spectacle than substance.
Financial hardship, necessitated by an emergency relocation no person — let alone a medically vulnerable parent — should ever be forced to self-finance.

🛠️ IV. Remedies Requested of the Ombudsman

I respectfully request that the Ombudsman:

Conduct a comprehensive investigation into RBKC and Westminster’s sustained failures to meet statutory responsibilities.
Mandate immediate and enforceable corrective measures to prevent recurrence.
Require mandatory disability competence training for all relevant personnel, to combat the evident illiteracy regarding protected rights.
Recommend formal redress, including financial compensation proportionate to the gravity of harm inflicted.

🖋️ V. Conclusion and Anticipated Response

It is with considerable disappointment — though not, alas, with surprise — that I must pursue external recourse, having exhausted all internal avenues.
I therefore request a formal response within 28 calendar days, outlining the Ombudsman’s intended course of action.

Should satisfactory redress not be forthcoming, I shall pursue legal action under the Equality Act 2010 and for negligence under public law principles.

Please confirm receipt of this correspondence and advise accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

Polly

Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.)

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion