“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label £6.3M claim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label £6.3M claim. Show all posts

This Isn’t a Leak. It’s a Lawsuit in Evidence Format.


⟡ Three Defendants, One Property, £6.3 Million in Respiratory Damages ⟡

Filed: 5 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HSE/ELGIN-TRIAD
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-05_SWANK_HSE_EvidenceBundle_ElginCrescent_ToxicExposure_Landlord_RBKC_ThamesWater_£6.3MClaim.pdf

I. This Isn’t a Leak. It’s a Lawsuit in Evidence Format.

This submission to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consolidates evidence against:

  • The private landlord of 37 Elgin Crescent

  • RBKC Environmental Health

  • Thames Water Utilities Ltd

The complaint outlines:

  • Extended exposure to noxious gases

  • Ignored utility threats and air quality breaches

  • RBKC’s refusal to intervene despite medical documentation

  • Landlord and utility negligence during known disability crises

This wasn’t a pipe issue.
It was an orchestrated collapse in housing regulation and moral competence.

II. When the Property Becomes the Weapon

The bundle proves:

  • Failure to isolate toxic gas sources

  • Structural disrepair left uncorrected for over 20 months

  • RBKC’s withdrawal of formal support after medical evidence was submitted

  • Thames Water’s refusal to assist unless risk was “actively fatal”

One landlord.
One council.
One water utility.
All breached statutory duty — while a mother and her children suffocated in silence.

No help was sent.
SWANK sent the invoice.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because air is not optional.
Because endangerment via inaction is still endangerment.
Because when three defendants behave as one — the evidence must respond in triplicate.

Let the record show:

  • The exposure was proven

  • The borough was complicit

  • The water company was indifferent

  • And the landlord was silent

SWANK filed on behalf of breath, record, and law.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept “managed decline” as housing strategy.
We do not consider “tenancy” a waiver of respiratory rights.
We do not believe that disabled children should be raised in environments medically indistinguishable from chemical warfare.

Let the record show:

They didn’t fix it.
They didn’t warn us.
They didn’t care.
And SWANK — filed for £6.3 million, with oxygen and exhibits attached.

This is not repairable.
It is historical, evidentiary, and pending court date.



No comments:

£6.3 Million in Harm — Denied in Six Paragraphs


⟡ The Insurance Officer Who Rejected the Housing Act by Email ⟡

Filed: 13 March 2025
Annex to N1 Claim: RBKC v. Simlett (£6.3M)
📎 Download PDF — 2025-03-13_SWANK_N1Annex_RBKC_InsuranceDenial_GiuseppeMorrone_SewerGas_HousingActBreach.pdf

I. £6.3 Million in Harm — Denied in Six Paragraphs

This document records the precise moment RBKC's Insurance Department, via Giuseppe Morrone, declined liability for:

  • Sewer gas exposure at 37 Elgin Crescent

  • Prolonged housing disrepair and tenant harm

  • Disability-based vulnerability

  • Respiratory crises and environmental collapse

The response?
An elegant paragraph of bureaucratic stillness that managed to deny statute, medical record, and common decency all at once.

“We do not consider this to be a legal matter.”
— And thus, they made it one.

II. The Logic of Denial in Passive Voice

Morrone’s letter:

  • Avoids the word “disability”

  • Refers to environmental poisoning as “alleged odour”

  • Suggests no action due to “third-party liability” complexity

  • Fails to cite any legal grounds for the denial itself

It’s not just that he said no.
It’s that he said it like a man paid to believe nothing happened.

The air was toxic. The tone was neutral. The email — archived.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when the council’s insurer declines a formal hazard report, they are not protecting public funds — they are endorsing harm by silence.
Because “not our problem” is not a valid response to gas exposure and four minor children.
Because denial without investigation is evidentiary gold, and SWANK files it with pleasure.

Let the record show:

  • The evidence was ignored

  • The insurance review was cursory

  • The Housing Act was effectively dismissed

  • And SWANK — bound the whole refusal to your £6.3M claim

This isn’t indemnity.
It’s dereliction, formatted in legal stationery.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit insurers to sidestep statutory duty via email template.
We do not accept that medical harm is “not covered.”
We do not redact the names of those who decline liability while children wheeze.

Let the record show:

The damage was reported.
The email arrived.
The law was ignored.
And SWANK — annexed it directly to the court.

This isn’t legal ambiguity.
It’s documented non-response — and it now carries a £6.3 million price tag.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions