⟡ They Ignored the Adjustment. We Filed the Complaint. ⟡
“I asked to communicate in writing. They escalated safeguarding instead.”
Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EHRC-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-17_SWANK_EHRCComplaint_Westminster_DisabilityAdjustmentRetaliation.pdf
Formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission citing Westminster’s refusal to implement a disability adjustment, escalation of safeguarding in retaliation, and breach of public sector equality duties.
I. What Happened
Despite receiving a written-only communication request on 22 May 2025 — supported by medical evidence, legal policy, and multiple hospitalisations — Westminster Children’s Services responded with:
No written reply
A supervision order threat
Unannounced visits
Surveillance-style behaviour
Complete disregard for the audit timeline
Rather than adjust, they retaliated.
Rather than reply, they acted.
And when they were reminded of the law, they doubled down.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Westminster violated the Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 27, and 149
That a written-only adjustment was refused despite clinical necessity and legal demand
That safeguarding measures were escalated directly after legal assertion of disability protections
That Westminster failed in its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) while under active oversight
That SWANK’s public audit was ignored while procedural abuse intensified
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a parent says:
“I cannot speak. Please write to me.”
And a council responds by sending someone to their door —
That’s not protection. That’s targeting.
Because this wasn’t a delay.
It was a documented refusal.
And because every ignored adjustment becomes
evidence of discrimination, once archived.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010
Section 20 – Reasonable adjustments not honoured
Section 27 – Victimisation following protected act
Section 149 – Failure of Public Sector Equality Duty
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 8 and 14
Discriminatory interference with privacy and dignity
Data Protection Act 2018
Failure to process records under accessibility requirement
Children Act 1989 / 2004
Procedural misuse under the guise of welfare concern
V. SWANK’s Position
They were asked to put it in writing.
They put someone at the door instead.
They called it safeguarding.
We call it retaliation.
This wasn’t miscommunication.
It was discriminatory by design.
And now it’s logged, filed, and escalated.