⟡ The Fumes Were Never Mould: A Hydrogen Sulphide Correction to RBKC and Its Habit of Misdiagnosing the Air ⟡
Filed by Polly Chromatic, Who Has Breathed Enough of This Borough’s Bureaucracy — and the Sewage It Conceals
Filed: 14 February 2024
Reference Code: RBKC-HOUSING-SULPHIDE-CORRECTION-2024
Court File Name: 2024-02-14_HousingComplaint_12060761_7_Response_HealthConcerns_ToxicSewage.pdf
Summary: In this scientifically sourced rebuttal, Polly Chromatic formally corrects RBKC’s environmental gaslighting and demands accountability for the Borough’s misdiagnosis of sewage fumes as mere mould. Attached to the letter is the full weight of hydrogen sulphide toxicology, medical symptomology, and a housing complaint timeline now verging on unlawful.
I. What Happened
After receiving a dismissal of her concerns focused on “mould,” Polly Chromatic replied with a full-blown correction — legal, medical, and evidentiary — to Kevin Thompson of RBKC’s Complaints Team.
She clarified:
That the flat’s hazard was not mould, but hydrogen sulphide — a highly toxic gas released by sewage systems.
That her initial complaint dated back to 26 July 2023.
That she and her children suffered documented symptoms of poisoning: memory loss, dizziness, swollen tongue, respiratory irritation, insomnia, and cognitive disorientation.
That camera footage refutes false factual claims about who was present during inspections.
That despite Thames Water digging near the flat from October 2023 to February 2024, no official agency took proper action or offered safe housing.
That her family has been forced into hotel accommodation — at personal expense — since 14 October 2023, with no assistance or admission of responsibility.
II. What the Letter Establishes
That RBKC misrepresented the hazard in its internal communication, ignoring the actual cause (hydrogen sulphide).
That the Borough failed to understand or act upon its own statutory duties under environmental health law.
That Polly Chromatic provided early warning, video evidence, medical correlation, and external confirmation — all ignored.
That the housing and medical crisis could have been shortened or prevented had officials acted with lawful urgency.
That this is no longer a maintenance issue — it is systemic medical negligence compounded by civic cruelty.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a council replies to a hydrogen sulphide poisoning report by talking about mould, we enter the archival genre of Dangerous Incompetence.
Because a mother should not have to attach toxicology citations from Public Health England to explain why her lungs hurt.
Because the silence is deliberate, and the delay is deadly.
Because what Polly Chromatic submitted was not just a complaint. It was a scientific intervention — addressed to a borough that has stopped reading and started retaliating.
IV. Violations
Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Statutory nuisance ignored, toxic exposure dismissed
Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) – Failure to act on Category 1 hazard
Children Act 1989 – Failure to safeguard medically vulnerable minors
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate disability-related environmental triggers
Human Rights Act 1998 – Breach of Article 3 (inhuman treatment), Article 8 (family life)
Toxicology Governance – Ignoring hydrogen sulphide protocols issued by Public Health England
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not housing mismanagement.
It is environmental abuse via administrative theatre.
Polly Chromatic submitted a record of illness, dates, scientific evidence, photographic proof, and legal correctness.
RBKC replied with: “Thanks, but we’ll keep pretending it’s mould.”
The record is now complete.
And the fumes — unlike the Borough — do not lie.
⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.
⟡ 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.