⟡ They Never Replied. So We Escalated to Parliament. ⟡
“The complaints weren’t mishandled. They were ignored entirely.”
Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PHSO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-17_SWANK_PHSOComplaint_Westminster_ComplaintProcessFailureAndNonResponse.pdf
Formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman citing Westminster City Council’s failure to respond to any statutory complaint, audit notice, or legal demand issued between May and June 2025.
I. What Happened
Between 22 May and 16 June 2025, Westminster Children’s Services was sent no fewer than four written legal notices and formal complaints, each documenting severe procedural breaches, disability discrimination, and misuse of safeguarding protocols.
Westminster replied to none of them.
No acknowledgement.
No holding letter.
No indication that a complaint process even existed.
Their complaints process wasn’t overwhelmed.
It was absent.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Westminster’s internal complaint system failed at the first step: acknowledgement
That no written response was provided to:
Legal demand for disability adjustment
Cease and desist for safeguarding retaliation
Procedural review following a supervision threat
Statutory audit follow-up
That internal remedies were actively denied, not simply delayed
That the Council’s silence prevented access to lawful accountability
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when you send four formal complaints — and no one answers —
That’s not a service failure.
That’s administrative abandonment.
Because “waiting for a reply” becomes complicity if the system is designed not to respond.
And because when a council ignores legal notices under audit,
they forfeit the right to handle complaints internally.
So we referred them externally. To Parliament.
IV. Violations
Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009
Failure to acknowledge or process complaints within reasonable time
Equality Act 2010 – Section 20
Disability adjustment requests ignored
Children Act 1989 – Safeguarding protocol breach
Complaint regarding misuse of procedures left unaddressed
Human Rights Act – Article 6 and 8
Denial of fair process and personal dignity
V. SWANK’s Position
They didn't mishandle the complaint.
They refused to touch it.
And when a complaint goes unacknowledged — across departments, teams, and deadlines —
That’s not an error. That’s a wall.
So we did what anyone under audit would do.
We broke through it.