⟡ “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.