Giuseppe Said 'No Liability' — We Sent Him the Housing Act

---

⟡ “The Mould Is Real. So Is the Law.” ⟡

RBKC Told the Archive It Wasn’t Liable — So We Sent Them a Statute-by-Statute Reminder
 
Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-04
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Email_RBKC_GiuseppeMorrone_HousingNeglectStatutoryBreach.pdf
Summary: Formal liability dispute filed with RBKC’s Insurance Officer Giuseppe Morrone, citing statutory breaches under housing and environmental health law. Includes demand for complaint records and legal clarification.

---

I. What Happened

On 11 March 2025, SWANK Director Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett (Polly Chromatic) formally replied to Giuseppe Morrone, Senior Insurance Officer at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The message was triggered by RBKC’s attempt to deny liability for prolonged exposure to:

• Toxic mould and damp

• Sewer gas from blocked soil pipes

• Environmental harm affecting a disabled parent and children

The reply cites breaches under the Housing Act 2004 and Environmental Protection Act 1990, reasserts previously ignored complaints, and demands internal records related to assessments of 37 Elgin Crescent, Flat E.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• The Council failed its statutory duty to address Category 1 housing hazards

• Repeated health complaints were logged but systematically unaddressed

• There was no serious investigation, despite documented asthma, hospitalisation, and visible disrepair

• Liability denial occurred without investigation, record disclosure, or environmental reinspection

• The Council is now being held accountable in writing, with legal reference citations

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because refusing liability does not erase exposure.
Because legal obligations don’t dissolve when they’re inconvenient.
Because a damp Victorian flat with medical harm is not a “policy grey area” — it’s a statutory failure.

SWANK logs the law — and the silence that violated it.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that liability can be rejected without record review.
We do not accept that damp, sewer gas, and medical injury are “not actionable.”
We do not accept that officials can ignore housing law because they work in insurance.

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a legal counter-notification.
And SWANK will document every statute the council dared to sidestep.

---

⟡ 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.

£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.

---

---

---

---

🦚 Formal Complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman – Concerning Prolonged Negligence, Discrimination, and Dereliction of Duty by Westminster and RBKC Authorities

Filed under the documentation of systemic abdication, legislative breach, and the institutional choreography of studied indifference.

---

10 March 2025
To:
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) Complaints Team
PO Box 4771, Coventry, CV4 0EH

Subject: Formal Complaint – Prolonged Negligence, Discrimination, and Dereliction of Duty by Westminster and RBKC Authorities

---

📜 Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to submit a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) concerning the sustained, systemic failure of statutory duty by:

• Westminster City Council; and

• The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).

This complaint is not born of isolated missteps,

but the cumulative consequence of institutionalised inertia, legislative breach, and administrative evasion.

---

📚 1. Summary of Local Authority Failings – A Catalogue of Institutional Shrugs

The failures herein described are not abstract.
They have materially impacted:

• My health;

• My finances;

• My safety;

• And my basic dignity.

Specifically:

• Social Services (Westminster and RBKC) engaged in discriminatory interventions, wilfully disregarding my documented disabilities, and failing to meet their legal obligations to provide reasonable adjustments.

• RBKC Environmental Health neglected to act upon explicit reports of toxic sewer gas exposure in my former residence, endangering myself and my children.

• Westminster City Council demonstrated a pattern of inaction, leaving qualifying conditions under the Equality Act 2010 unaddressed.

This was not isolated error.
It was governance by strategic neglect.

---

📜 2. Legal Breaches – Decorated in Policy, Deficient in Practice

The conduct of these local authorities constitutes direct breaches of:

• The Local Government Act 1974 – Mandating the fair and timely handling of public complaints;

• The Equality Act 2010 (Section 20) – Requiring public bodies to implement reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals;

• The Housing Act 2004 – Obliging councils to address serious hazards impacting health and wellbeing.

At every juncture:

Obligation was shelved; policy became performance; and duty was displaced onto the vulnerable.

---

📚 3. Consequences of Negligence – Damage Dressed in Delay

As a direct and foreseeable result of these failures, I have suffered:

• Severe, avoidable health deterioration due to prolonged environmental exposure;

• Intrusive, medically harmful social work interventions, ignoring established medical requirements for communication adaptations;

• Financial hardship, after being forced to relocate from unsafe housing without compensation, assistance, or acknowledgment.

When protection became inconvenient, the burden was simply transferred — to me and my children.

---

📜 4. Actions Requested of the LGO – A Modest Proposal for Redress and Reform

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Ombudsman:

1. Initiate a full investigation into systemic failures by RBKC and Westminster City Council across Social Services and Environmental Health.

2. Mandate corrective action, including the review of safeguarding and housing procedures for disabled service users.

3. Require the implementation of disability awareness training across all relevant departments, to counteract persistent breaches of the Equality Act 2010.

4. Recommend redress, including financial compensation, where hardship and harm have been demonstrably caused by council negligence.

---

📬 5. Next Steps – Timeframes and Intentions

I request:

• A written acknowledgment of receipt;

• A timeline detailing how this complaint will be processed,

• Within 28 days.

Should a satisfactory resolution not be achieved,
I reserve the right to pursue formal legal action for:

• Breaches of the Equality Act 2010;

• Local authority negligence;

• Failure to uphold statutory duties under housing and social care legislation.

---

Kindly confirm receipt and advise which supporting documentation is required to advance this complaint.

---

📜 Yours,

With due formality and an ever-expanding archive of receipts,
Polly

---