In the Matter of Methane, Messaging, and the Manufactured Myth of Safety

---

🪞The Flat That Poisoned and the Authority That Pretended Not to Smell It

In the Matter of Elgin Crescent and the Sewer Gas Files

---

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 13 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A07-ELGINWHATSAPP
Court File Name: 2025-07-13_Addendum_ElginCrescent_HousingHazard_WhatsAppEvidence.pdf
Summary: A formal evidentiary submission documenting the WhatsApp correspondence regarding the persistent sewer gas leak at Elgin Crescent, W11 — evidence that was dismissed, downplayed, and deliberately excluded from institutional risk assessments.

---

I. What Happened

Between June and October 2023, Polly Chromatic and her four children — all U.S. citizens — were housed at 37 Elgin Crescent, a privately rented flat in Kensington.

From the outset, the property emitted the unmistakable stench of sewer gas. Complaints were raised. WhatsApp messages to the landlord and agents documented the escalating smell, its health impacts, and the failure of multiple “fixes” to address the crisis.

And yet — no Environmental Health action.
No rehousing.
No formal risk declaration.

Instead, Polly was forced to remain in the property for months, despite her eosinophilic asthma, despite worsening symptoms, and despite the direct medical harm it caused to her and her children.

This addendum presents the unfiltered, time-stamped digital trail — messages ignored, hazards denied, and harm incurred.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

1. The housing at Elgin Crescent was unsafe and medically hazardous.

2. The landlord and agents were repeatedly informed, acknowledged the issue, and failed to resolve it.

3. No statutory body intervened to relocate the family or initiate emergency mitigation.

4. Subsequent safeguarding narratives erased the existence of this environmental crisis entirely.

5. The family’s documented health deterioration was predictable, preventable, and institutionally ignored.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because asthma is not anecdotal.
Because a mother begging for breathable air is not “difficult” — she is suffocating.
Because WhatsApp is where landlords make promises — and where silence becomes evidence.
Because children should not have to inhale methane while bureaucrats inhale reports.

---

IV. Violations

• Housing Act 2004 – Category 1 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System

• Children Act 1989, s.17 & s.47 – Failure to safeguard children from environmental harm

• Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate disability-related risks

• Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Statutory nuisance unaddressed

As Bromley’s Family Law (11th Ed., p. 646) reminds us:

“Environmental hazards affecting family health may constitute a breach of both public law and safeguarding obligations if known authorities fail to act.”

They knew.
They acted like they didn’t.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We reject the doctrine of ‘invisible danger.’
We reject the silence of landlords who respond only when sued.
We reject the state’s comfort with rebranding negligence as “parental concern.”

This was not an overreaction.
It was the slow criminalisation of breath.

And if the Kingdom wants to pretend sewer gas didn’t matter, let them read the WhatsApps — and hold their breath while they do it.

---

Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
📍 Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.