£2.1 Million for Systemic Harm: NHS Failure, Social Retaliation & the Empire of Inhumanity

---

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-05-05–ANNEX–NHS-CIVIL-CLAIM–TOTAL-FAILURE
Filed Under: Medical Negligence · Disability Abuse · Judicial Stonewalling · Institutional Retaliation
From: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com | 🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 5 May 2025

---

🧾 ANNEX TO CIVIL CLAIM

CLAIMANT: Polly Chromatic 
DEFENDANTS:

• Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

• Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

---

⚖️ Summary of Allegations: St Thomas’ Hospital (GSTT)

Incidents:

• A&E attendance in November 2023 and January 2024

Alleged Misconduct:

• 🚫 Denial of emergency asthma treatment

• 🧪 False accusations of intoxication and erratic behaviour — conflating disability symptoms with criminality

• 🎨 Racial profiling of family and assumptions of parental unfitness

• 🚨 Wrongful police involvement, safeguarding threats, and trauma inflicted on children

• 💔 Enduring psychological harm, procedural injustice, and reputational damage

Legal Breaches:

• Clinical Negligence

• Equality Act 2010 — Sections 19, 20, 21

• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3, 6, 8

• Procedural Impropriety and Institutional Bias

Damages Claimed:

• Claimant: £500,000

• Four children: £400,000 each = £1,600,000
  💰 Total: £2,100,000

Interest Claimed:

• £154,301.44 as of 5 May 2025

• Statutory daily rate: £2,410.96 (County Courts Act 1984, s.69)

---

🧾 ANNEX TO CIVIL CLAIM

CLAIMANT: Polly Chromatic
DEFENDANT: Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Allegations:

• Repeated A&E visits in early 2024

• Staff dismissed life-threatening symptoms and ignored disability communication needs

• Safeguarding referrals made based on bias and misinformation

• Clinical judgement replaced by institutionalised suspicion

Legal Breaches:

• Clinical Negligence

• Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20, 21

• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3, 8

• Violation of NHS Constitution

Damages Claimed:

• Claimant: £500,000

• Four children: £400,000 each = £1,600,000
  💰 Total: £2,100,000

Interest Claimed:

• £154,301.44 as of 5 May 2025

• Accrues daily at £2,410.96

---

📜 MASTER WITNESS STATEMENT

Polly Chromatic 
Statement of Truth – Submitted in support of N1 Civil Claim

---

I. ✈ Domestic Violence, Exile & Institutional Harassment

• Fled Turks & Caicos in 2015 after severe domestic abuse

• Sought asylum in London; met by Camden Council hostility

• Camden escalated child protection without basis after disclosure

• Escaped while pregnant due to risk of baby removal at birth

• Returned in 2021 after further trauma and near-fatal asthma

---

II. 🏚 Housing & Medical Neglect

• Exposed to toxic sewer gas in Elgin Crescent (June–Oct 2023)

• Hospitalised in respiratory crisis at St Thomas’

• Accused of intoxication, refused care, verbally attacked in A&E

• Police invaded hotel room on son’s birthday, still untreated

---

III. 🧠 Social Services Retaliation & Disability Discrimination

• CPP escalation after forced verbal interaction while voiceless

• Westminster refused written-only adjustment requests

• Repeated illness followed from intrusion and non-accommodation

• Filing of N1 claim led to retaliatory PLO meeting, based on false allegations

---

IV. 🏫 Institutional Harassment by Schools, Councils & Hotels

• False reports by neighbour weaponised by schools

• Innocent bruises used to justify safeguarding escalation

• Hotel (Holiday Inn Kensington) issued noise complaints and police threats during medical crisis

• Forced displacements compounded trauma

---

V. ⚖ Judicial & Procedural Injustice

• Crown Court refuses to honour disability adjustment despite medical documentation (Dr. Rafiq)

• Continues to demand verbal contact

• Judicial review (N461) and injunction (N16A) now filed

---

VI. 💥 Relief Sought

• Acknowledgement of systemic harm

• Compensation for injuries (emotional, medical, procedural)

• Declaration of unlawful discrimination

• Injunctive protection from further institutional retaliation

---

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed: Polly Chromatic
Dated: 5 May 2025

---

The Archive Requested Advocacy. Let History Show Who Answered. — Liberty Has Been Notified

---

⟡ Liberty Contacted. State Retaliation Declared. Support Requested. ⟡

“I am writing as the mother of a disabled family facing active state retaliation through fabricated safeguarding and coordinated misconduct.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/LIBERTY/ACCESS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Liberty_RequestForSupport_DisabledFamily_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
A formal request for human rights advocacy submitted to Liberty. The letter outlines documented retaliation by police, NHS trusts, and social workers against a medically disabled family pursuing lawful legal claims. Public interest is no longer theoretical — it’s archived.

---

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a support request to Liberty, the UK’s leading civil rights organisation.

The letter summarises:

• Criminal safeguarding misuse

• Retaliation for disability-based legal filings

• NHS neglect and obstruction of medical care

• Multi-agency coordination across police, social workers, and state services

• Ongoing civil and judicial proceedings totalling £23 million in damages

It also attaches:

• A written-only communication policy

• Evidence-based summaries already submitted to regulators, courts, and journalists

---

II. What the Filing Establishes

• That Liberty is now on record as having received a formal request tied to legal, medical, and human rights abuse

• That the state has retaliated against a disabled mother and four children across institutional boundaries

• That this is not a local dispute, but a systemic failure of care, access, and law

• That support was sought — before the archive simply documented the silence

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the human rights sector must respond when systems collude.
Because disability retaliation is not accidental.
Because asking for support is an evidentiary act when power fails the vulnerable.

This isn’t a whisper.
It’s a procedural record.
Liberty has been notified — and now, Liberty is archived.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that advocacy only applies post-detention.
We do not accept the erasure of state-based harm when the survivor is articulate.
We do not accept that a disabled woman must scream for support to deserve it.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the regulators fail,
We notify the rights groups.
If the rights groups go silent,
We publish that too.
And if no one defends the disabled,
We write it down in font large enough to indict.

---

⟡ 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 Hospitals Harm: How GSTT Weaponised Silence, Safeguarding & Non-Response

---

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-06-02–PHSO–GSTT-INDECENT-PROTRACTED
Filed Under: NHS Delays, Disability Dismissals & Safeguarding Farce
From: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 2 June 2025

---

💼 Subject:

Formal Escalation – Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

Unresolved Complaint, Retaliatory Safeguarding & Clinical Incompetence

---

Dear Sir or Madam,

What follows is not a fresh complaint, but the remains of one—left to rot in the inboxes of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, untouched, unanswered, and untreated for over twelve weeks.

On 10 March 2025, I submitted a complaint concerning two medical incidents at St Thomas’ Hospital (4 November 2024 & 2 January 2025). Since then, the Trust has responded with prolonged silence—a delay not merely inconsiderate but procedurally unconscionable.

I now formally request that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman intervene, as the Trust appears unwilling or unable to locate its statutory obligations, let alone fulfil them.

---

🩺 Summary of Malpractice and Mayhem:

• On both occasions, I arrived in respiratory distress (eosinophilic asthma).

• I was denied proper treatment, and reasonable adjustments were pointedly refused—despite diagnosed communication disabilities (vocal cord dysfunction and muscle tension dysphonia).

• My repeated, lawful requests for written communication were ignored, as if decorum were optional.

• The Trust retaliated with a safeguarding referral so baseless it collapsed into farce, culminating in police interference at our hotel and harm to my children.

---

This sequence of events—a collision of incompetence, arrogance, and contempt—amounts to:

• A breach of the Equality Act 2010

• A direct affront to the NHS Constitution

• And a clear failure to offer dignified, accessible, or lawful care

---

📎 Documentation (For Those Who Read):

I enclose my Written Communication Statement, which outlines the statutory basis and medical rationale for written-only engagement. It is also available online, for the benefit of institutions with a penchant for misplacing attachments:
🔗 Written Communication Statement

---

🕯 The Ask (Since It Must Be Spelled Out):

• That the PHSO accept and investigate this complaint as a matter of urgency

• That the Trust’s inertia and misconduct be examined for what they are: calculated institutional dereliction

---

This submission is issued under the insignia of SWANK London Ltd., a documentation authority intolerant of administrative melodrama masquerading as governance.

Yours in barbed civility,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🩺 NHS No: 6666666666
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

---

Justice Denied by Design: The Crown Court's Refusal to Accommodate Disability

---

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-05-18–PHSO–CROWN-INACCESSIBLE
Filed Under: Due Process Derailed · Legal Theatre of Cruelty · Digital Ableism Chronicles

---

TO:
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Casework Team

FROM:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 18 May 2025

---

💼 SUBJECT:

Complaint – Inner London Crown Court & HMCTS

Refusal of Lawful Disability Adjustments
Where Justice Wears a Wig and Ignores the Equality Act

---

Dear Casework Custodians,

Let us dispense with the theatre of diplomacy: I am writing to report what can only be described as a systemic farce—wherein His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and the Inner London Crown Court have treated disability legislation as optional décor.

Despite:

• Repeated written requests,

• Lawful clinical evidence (Rafiq Report, 26 November 2024),

• And the foundational principles of equal access to justice,

…I was:

• ❌ Denied my medically essential written-only communication adjustment

• 🎭 Pressured to appear in person and engage in verbal contact, despite documented risk

• 🧾 Ignored in clear violation of Sections 20 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010

• 🧠 Subjected to psychological harm, procedural disadvantage, and discriminatory exclusion

• ⚖️ Denied access to justice—not by accident, but by repeated institutional neglect

---

🏛 What I Did (To Be Ignored in Style):

I submitted formal complaints to:

• The Inner London Crown Court

• HMCTS

• The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)

All responded with resounding administrative nothingness. The performance of legality was maintained. The substance of justice was not.

---

🕯 What I Require:

That the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman conduct a full investigation into:

• This pattern of disability discrimination

• The operational and legal failures involved

• The violations of my human rights under both domestic and international law

---

✒ Communication Protocol:

Correspondence must be in writing only. This is not negotiable. It is:

• 🩺 Clinically mandated

• 📜 Statutorily protected

• 📌 Previously ignored at cost

Consider this letter not merely a complaint, but a documented refusal to be silently excluded from the very system meant to uphold the rule of law.

Yours in principled indignation,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

---

Email Threat of Supervision Order – Procedural Retaliation by Kirsty Hornal (WCC) | 31 May 2025

---

📮 Dispatch: Supervision by Threat

Subject: Kirsty Hornal’s Email of 31 May 2025
Filed Under: Procedural Retaliation, Email Harassment, Disability Discrimination

---

🕯 Summary:

On 31 May 2025, Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services issued a strikingly unprofessional communication declaring that Westminster Council was “applying to court for a supervision order.”

Not via legal service.
Not via formal case proceedings.
But via email. Casual. Unsanctioned. And profoundly coercive.

---

🎭 This Was Not Safeguarding. This Was Threat Theatre.

---

1. Retaliation, Thinly Veiled

At the time of this email, the recipient — Director of SWANK London Ltd. — had a live N1 claim against Westminster City Council and affiliated public bodies.

Hornal’s statement appears surgically timed to:

• Intimidate the claimant during active legal action

• Punish refusal to submit to informal CIN procedures

• Preempt judicial or regulatory scrutiny by manufacturing a pseudo-crisis

This is not child protection. It is a procedural counter-attack.

---

2. Procedural Misconduct by Omission

A lawful application for a supervision order must be preceded by:

• Multi-agency safeguarding discussions

• Escalation through the Public Law Outline (PLO)

• Clear, evidence-based risk thresholds

Ms Hornal bypassed all of this.
There was no lawful trigger.
Only retaliation — typed, sent, and CC’d.

---

3. Disability Discrimination (Weaponised)

The recipient has a documented written-only communication policy, grounded in medical evidence of:

• Eosinophilic asthma

• Muscle tension dysphonia

• PTSD linked to state harassment

This email violated that adjustment, knowing it would destabilise the recipient.

To do so in the name of “child welfare” is a grotesque inversion of duty.

---

4. Breach of Legal and Professional Standards

The act violates multiple frameworks simultaneously:

• Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding pathways

• Equality Act 2010 – Disability adjustment ignored

• Social Work England (SWE) Code of Ethics – Abuse of power

• LGSCO Maladministration Standards – Procedural unfairness, lack of proportionality

---

5. A Documented Pattern

This is not an isolated episode.

Similar escalations have occurred precisely when:

• Legal filings were made

• Complaints were submitted

• Medical boundaries were asserted

The evidence points to a systemic pattern of retaliatory safeguarding, well-documented in SWANK’s legal and police records.

---

📎 Concluding Position:

This is not “liaison.”
This is not “support.”
This is targeted coercion masquerading as child protection — emailed, unfiltered, and procedurally rotten.

---

Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

---