“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 Housing Complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Housing Complaint. Show all posts

Retaliation Ignored. Disability Denied. Mould Uninvestigated. So We Escalated.


⟡ “They Ignored the Mould. We Escalated the Archive.” ⟡
SWANK Formally Refers Unresolved Housing Complaint to the LGSCO After RBKC Refuses Action on Hazard, Retaliation, and Discrimination

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/LGSCO-REF-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Email_LGSCO_HousingReferral_RBKCComplaint12060761.pdf
Summary: SWANK London Ltd. refers RBKC Housing Complaint 12060761 to the Ombudsman, citing unsafe housing, procedural retaliation, and failure to accommodate disability needs.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) submitted a formal referral to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The complaint:

– Follows RBKC’s Stage 2 closure on 27 May 2025
– Concerns 37 Elgin Crescent, Flat E
– Details persistent mould, damp, sewer gas exposure, and medical risk
– Alleges disability discrimination, failure to act on Environmental Health findings, and procedural retaliation
– Names Hardeep Kundi as a responsible officer

The referral requests a full review and invites LGSCO to request any supporting documentation needed.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC concluded a Stage 2 investigation without addressing urgent health and safety issues
• Council failed to act on clear evidence of housing disrepair and medical endangerment
• Disabled residents, including children, were left exposed to hazardous living conditions
• Procedural retaliation followed formal complaints — implicating named officers
• Local process failed — requiring national scrutiny via the Ombudsman

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is where local governance ends — and external oversight begins.
Because when the state fails to fix the mould, we escalate the archive.
Because retaliation after complaint is not just unethical — it’s unlawful.

SWANK documents the moment when advocacy becomes escalation — and silence meets structure.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that medically hazardous conditions can be administratively “closed.”
We do not accept that retaliation is permissible just because it’s procedurally denied.
We do not accept that the Ombudsman is a formality — they are a mirror.

This wasn’t just a referral. This was a structural handover.
And SWANK will log what RBKC refused to record.

⟡ 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.


No comments:

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.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions