You Said It Wasn’t Yours — So Why Didn’t You Stop It?

---

⟡ “I May Not Be a UK Citizen — But Your Legal Duties Still Apply.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Replies to RBKC’s Insurance Officer, Reframing Liability Beyond Ownership and Defining the Council’s Possible Role in Ongoing Housing Harm

Filed: 10 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-06
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-10_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Morrone_LiabilityClarification_NIStatement_HazardOversight.pdf
Summary: Responding to RBKC's attempt to sidestep responsibility, Polly Chromatic formally requests clarification of the Council's housing oversight, hazard response, and regulatory duties — while noting non-citizenship status.

---

I. What Happened

On 10 March 2025, following a liability delay from RBKC Insurance Officer Giuseppe Morrone, Polly Chromatic (Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) responded with a structured clarification:

– Declined to provide a National Insurance number due to non-citizenship
– Requested confirmation of RBKC’s regulatory obligations around housing hazard prevention
– Asked for disclosure of any prior reports or internal records tied to Flat E, 37 Elgin Crescent
– Questioned RBKC’s role in inspection, compliance, and enforcement related to the faulty gas pipe
– Kept the tone cooperative — but placed the burden of clarity back on the Council

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• RBKC’s effort to derail the claim on procedural grounds (NI number) is neutralised
• You legally reposition the liability question toward oversight, response, and statutory role — not mere ownership
• The Council is now on record as being expected to explain its inaction
• This is a tactical letter — it reads cooperative, but it cements RBKC’s duty to answer

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when institutions hide behind “that’s not our pipe,” the archive demands they show us the blueprint.
Because duty doesn’t vanish at the title deed — it lingers in the mould.
Because this letter flips the liability lens from property lines to regulatory failure.

SWANK documents when the archive stopped asking for help — and started demanding accountability.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that non-citizenship erases a Council’s legal duty.
We do not accept that oversight means silence.
We do not accept that a missing NI number is a valid reason to ignore gas leaks and chronic harm.

This wasn’t a reply. It was a procedural pivot.
And SWANK will archive every moment the Council tried to draw a boundary — and you redrew the map.

---

⟡ 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.

The Mould Might Not Be Theirs — But the Delay Certainly Is

---

⟡ “Not Our Pipe, Not Our Problem — But Please Explain Why It Might Be” ⟡

RBKC’s Insurance Officer Requests National Insurance Number and Shifts Burden of Legal Responsibility Back to Complainant

Filed: 10 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-05
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-10_SWANK_Email_RBKC_GiuseppeMorrone_LiabilityStall_JurisdictionDenial.pdf
Summary: Giuseppe Morrone of RBKC Insurance Service states the gas pipe and landlord are not council assets and asks the complainant to explain RBKC’s liability — while continuing investigation.

---

I. What Happened

On 10 March 2025, RBKC’s Senior Principal Insurance Officer responded to a complaint about prolonged environmental health failure at 37 Elgin Crescent, Flat E. His message:

– Reasserted his role as investigator
– Requested a National Insurance number, despite prior detailed communications
– Claimed the property and gas infrastructure may fall outside of RBKC ownership
– Asked the complainant to provide legal reasoning and factual basis for RBKC’s responsibility
– Indicated that unless RBKC appoints a solicitor, court service will be redirected to the CCMCC

---

II. What the Email Establishes

• RBKC is engaged in jurisdictional distancing to avoid liability
• The burden of proof is subtly shifted back to the disabled complainant
• The Council has not denied harm — only its ownership of the responsibility
• This correspondence creates a recorded stall in the timeline for insurance processing and statutory breach resolution
• The email functions as both gatekeeping and risk containment

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because public liability can’t be wriggled out of with “we’re not sure it’s ours.”
Because this was a request for evidence that should already be held by the Council.
Because when officials ask for your NI number instead of fixing the harm, they’re not investigating — they’re delaying.

SWANK logs every stall, every redirect, every legal half-denial masked as polite inquiry.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that liability can be paused while the complainant builds the Council’s legal position for it.
We do not accept that administrative fencing is an excuse for medical risk.
We do not accept that housing harm can be redirected to nowhere.

This wasn’t engagement. It was procedural evasion.
And SWANK will file every time the archive was asked to do the institution’s job.

---

⟡ 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.

We Had the Power. We Just Didn’t Use It. — RBKC’s Mould Logic

---

⟡ “They Had the Power — But Say They Had No Duty.” ⟡

RBKC Formally Denies Liability for Mould and Sewer Gas Injuries, Stating Its Powers to Intervene Do Not Imply Legal Responsibility

Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/LETTER-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Letter_RBKC_Morrone_LiabilityDenial_EnvironmentalHarm_ElginCrescent.pdf
Summary: RBKC Senior Insurance Officer Giuseppe Morrone denies legal responsibility for hazardous housing conditions, stating no statutory duty existed to intervene.

---

I. What Happened

On 11 March 2025, Giuseppe Morrone issued a formal insurance liability decision on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in response to a personal injury and housing harm claim filed by Polly Chromatic.

The letter:

– Offers condolences for the health impact and loss of a pet
– Denies Council responsibility for mould, sewer gas, or inspection failure
– States that RBKC’s statutory “powers” to act do not amount to a duty
– Suggests the landlord or Thames Water may be liable depending on the pipe location
– Confirms that no compensation will be offered
– Invokes limitation periods for legal claim timelines

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• RBKC’s legal position is that it can act on environmental health failures — but is never required to
• The Council is distancing itself from harm despite knowing the full facts
• Their reply admits harm occurred, but shifts all legal causality elsewhere
• This letter will be pivotal in any court filing or judicial review concerning duty of care, inspection powers, and harm
• It names senior officers and legal thresholds, making it fully actionable

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is the page where liability denial became a policy position.
Because telling a mother to sue her landlord after they ignored mould complaints is more than cold — it’s calculated.
Because when a council says “we could have helped, but didn’t have to,” the archive answers back.

SWANK documents every line where power was mistaken for permission — and duty was denied for convenience.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that local authorities can ignore medical danger with statutory impunity.
We do not accept that mould death and disability are the price of private tenancy.
We do not accept that sending condolences makes up for refusing action.

This wasn’t a letter. This was a liability firewall.
And SWANK will document every time institutional duty was dodged by redefining the word “optional.”

---

⟡ 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.

He Read ‘Eosinophilic Poisoning’ — And Waived the Rent

---

⟡ “The Flat Made Me Sick. He Waived the Rent.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Informs Landlord of Eosinophilic Asthma and Sewer Gas Poisoning — Landlord Acknowledges Health Impact and Waives Rent

Filed: 3 November 2023
Reference: SWANK/HOUSING/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2023-11-03_SWANK_EmailThread_LandlordAcknowledgement_EosinophilicAsthma_SewerGasWaiver.pdf
Summary: Landlord confirms awareness of sewer gas injury and waives rent in writing, after Polly Chromatic reports serious health harm due to unsafe housing conditions.

---

I. What Happened

On 3 November 2023, Polly Chromatic emailed her landlord Elad to report:

– Acute illness from conditions at 37E Elgin Crescent
– Diagnosis of eosinophilic asthma exacerbated by sewer gas
– Inability to search for housing due to medical crisis
– Request for respect of lease terms while recovering

Elad responded:

– Confirming Polly should not pay rent that month
– Stating health and safety was the “top priority”
– Asking for hotel invoices for cost reimbursement
– Confirming he was awaiting Thames Water's repair update

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• The landlord explicitly acknowledges environmental harm
• This is a written admission of injury + financial burden
• Thames Water is named as a third-party delay factor
• The reply reflects legal responsibility and interim remedy (waived rent, reimbursement)
• This supports both the insurance case against RBKC and your housing damages claim

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when your body says “I’m poisoned” and the landlord says “don’t pay rent,” we document both.
Because this wasn’t sympathy — it was risk management dressed as courtesy.
Because this is the moment the gas wasn’t just real — it was acknowledged.

SWANK logs every admission where silence would’ve served them better.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that tenants must prove illness when landlords already knew.
We do not accept that rent is owed when lungs collapse.
We do not accept that reimbursement erases responsibility.

This wasn’t kindness. It was liability avoidance — and we archived it.

---

⟡ 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.

Closed Locally, Filed Nationally: When SWANK Picks Up What RBKC Drops

---

⟡ “They Closed the Complaint — Not the Mould.” ⟡
RBKC Refused to Investigate Housing Hazards and Disability Failures — So SWANK Took It to the Ombudsman

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-04
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Email_LGSCO_RBKCComplaintReferral_UnsafeHousingRetaliation.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint referral to the Ombudsman following RBKC’s inadequate Stage 2 response on housing conditions, disability discrimination, and procedural abuse.

---

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal referral to the LGSCO following the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s failure to resolve housing complaint Ref: 12060761. The initial complaint was lodged earlier in 2025 and escalated on 20 May. RBKC issued a final reply on 27 May 2025 — which ignored core issues:

– Hazardous housing conditions at 37 Elgin Crescent
– Failure to act by Environmental Health
– Ignored requests for disability adjustments
– Evidence of retaliation following complaints
– Negligence by officer Hardeep Kundi

The letter confirms medical harm to the sender and children, and states this matter is also part of an active civil claim.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC failed to fulfil its statutory housing and safeguarding duties
• Environmental Health declined to act despite clear hazards
• Reasonable adjustment duties under the Equality Act 2010 were ignored
• The complaint trail shows a pattern of procedural retaliation
• Council processes collapsed at Stage 2, requiring ombudsman escalation
• The issue is not just administrative — it’s structural negligence resulting in medical harm

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this letter marks the official transition from local denial to national oversight.
Because when housing is hazardous and the council’s final word is deflection, the archive must become a megaphone.
Because it’s not just about mould or negligence — it’s about the machinery that protects both.

SWANK logs the chain of evasion and the exact moment the system was formally told: You do not close this. We escalate it.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that disability-related housing complaints can be closed without action.
We do not accept that safeguarding failures disappear once a reply is issued.
We do not accept that the Ombudsman is a last resort — they are an evidentiary witness.

This wasn’t a referral. It was an audit handoff.
And SWANK will retain every submission the state hoped would be lost in escalation.

---

⟡ 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.