⟡ Sulphide, Surveillance, and the Flat That Burned the Brain: A Final Correction to the Borough That Keeps Saying “Mould” ⟡
Polly Chromatic’s Public Health Masterclass on What Actually Happened at Elgin Crescent — and Who Ignored It
Filed: 14 February 2024
Reference Code: RBKC-HOUSING-2024-TOXICOLOGY-CORRECTION
Court File Name: 2024-02-14_HousingComplaint_12060761_8_FurtherResponse_HealthConcerns_HydrogenSulphide.pdf
Summary: A final factual and medical correction by Polly Chromatic, submitted in response to RBKC’s continued failure to acknowledge hydrogen sulphide poisoning. This document delivers the receipts, the science, the memory loss, the symptoms, the timeline — and the names of every agency that ignored them.
I. What Happened
On 14 February 2024, Polly Chromatic formally responded to a previous RBKC letter that continued to describe mouldas the flat’s main hazard.
She clarified — with scientific citations, dates, footage, and personal impact — that the correct diagnosis is hydrogen sulphide poisoning.
Key content includes:
The female assistant allegedly present during inspections was never in the flat — a fact corroborated by Polly’s own surveillance camera footage.
Polly first reported the smell on 26 July 2023.
The family’s progressive symptoms included: strangulation sensation, swollen tongue, memory loss, dizziness, insomnia, confusion, and respiratory distress — matching public health guidance on sulphide exposure.
Multiple video clips, environmental timelines, and Public Health England citations were included.
Polly’s family has been forced to live in a self-funded hotel stay since 14 October 2023 due to the Borough’s failure to act.
II. What the Letter Establishes
That RBKC continues to mislabel the environmental hazard, despite the overwhelming evidence provided.
That factual inaccuracies in RBKC’s record-keeping are being corrected by a mother forced to compile her own forensic timeline.
That housing displacement has been prolonged due to administrative deflection, not environmental resolution.
That Polly Chromatic has submitted more precise toxicological documentation than the Borough has managed in months of correspondence.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is what it looks like when the State forgets science — and a mother files it for her.
Because “mould” is not a synonym for “hydrogen sulphide.”
Because "assistance" is not a substitute for "repair."
Because when a Borough misdiagnoses environmental poisoning, the result is not confusion — it is chemical negligence.
And because Polly Chromatic’s archive is the only record that hasn’t gone soft with procedural mould.
IV. Violations
Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Failure to act on Category 1 hazard
Housing Act 2004 – Breach of HHSRS through toxic gas exposure
Children Act 1989 – Failure to act in best interest of medically compromised minors
Equality Act 2010 – Refusal to accommodate disability-based harm
Article 8, ECHR – Interference with home, safety, and family life
Article 3, ECHR – Exposure to degrading, harmful treatment via prolonged neglect
Statutory Duty of Candour – Breach through persistent misdescription of environmental facts
V. SWANK’s Position
This is the post where RBKC’s gaslighting becomes literal.
Polly Chromatic filed a scientifically verified, medically grounded, chronologically precise report — to a Borough still pretending this is about “damp.”
The evidence includes:
Public Health England toxicology files
Camera-confirmed attendance logs
Documented displacement
Recorded physical illness
RBKC’s continued denial is no longer a misunderstanding — it is strategic health endangerment wrapped in email civility.
And now it is SWANK-logged.
With your gas.
With your emails.
With your failure to relocate even as the family choked.
⟡ 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.