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.

The Sewer Gas Was Visible. The Accountability Was Not.

---

⟡ “The Gas Was Real. The Duty, They Say, Was Not.” ⟡

RBKC Reiterates Its Refusal to Accept Liability for a Prolonged Sewer Gas Leak, Claiming No Statutory Duty Despite Known Risk to Health

Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-07
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Morrone_LiabilityDenial_SewerGasHazard_ElginCrescent.pdf
Summary: Giuseppe Morrone reasserts RBKC’s legal position denying all liability for prolonged sewer gas exposure, stating the Council has “powers, not duties,” and instructs Polly Chromatic to sue the landlord instead.

---

I. What Happened

On 11 March 2025 at 9:47 AM, RBKC’s Senior Principal Insurance Officer Giuseppe Morrone responded to Polly Chromatic’s statutory complaint regarding a severe sewer gas leak at Flat E, 37 Elgin Crescent. His response:

– Reasserted the Council’s denial of liability
– Claimed that statutory powers under housing law do not imply a duty
– Advised Polly to pursue her landlord in court
– Clarified that this denial applies specifically to financial losses
– Referred all further concerns to the RBKC Complaints team, despite their Stage 1 closure
– Explained that unless solicitors are appointed, the claim will default to CCMCC via DCP

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• The Council maintains a legal firewall around its failure to intervene
• Despite the severity of a toxic sewer gas leak, RBKC refuses to accept responsibility
• The strategy is clear: deny duty, deflect liability, and refer back to internal departments
• It provides explicit confirmation that your next legal action must bypass DCP unless RBKC appoints legal counsel
• It creates a procedural paper trail of official refusal despite life-threatening exposure

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the difference between “power” and “duty” is a legal trick with medical consequences.
Because telling a disabled mother to chase her landlord through court while sewer gas poisons her home is not safeguarding — it’s abandonment.
Because this is the moment the Council said: we won’t stop it, and we won’t pay for it.

SWANK archives every denial that let the poison linger.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that environmental poisoning is exempt from accountability.
We do not accept that duty vanishes just because legal responsibility is inconvenient.
We do not accept that sewage in the air is someone else’s problem — when you’re the Council.

This wasn’t a response. It was a refusal in legal costume.
And SWANK will file every paragraph they used to delay relief.

---

⟡ 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.

The Council Has No Solicitor — And No Responsibility Either

---

⟡ “We Have the Powers. But We Deny the Duty — Again.” ⟡

RBKC Reiterates Its Denial of Legal Responsibility for Sewer Gas Hazard, States Statutory Housing Duties Do Not Apply to Council, and Refuses Complaint Reopening

Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Morrone_FinalDenial_SewerGas_LiabilityDispute.pdf
Summary: RBKC’s insurance officer restates liability denial over sewer gas exposure and redirects Polly Chromatic back to Stage 1 complaints — while advising her to initiate court action through CCMCC.

---

I. What Happened

This email from Giuseppe Morrone was sent at 09:32 on 11 March 2025, confirming that:

– RBKC maintains its refusal to accept liability
– The Housing Act and Environmental Protection Act are cited as irrelevant to council duty
– All financial compensation claims must be brought against the landlord
– RBKC sees its role as complete — complaints must go back through a closed channel
– For court proceedings, no solicitor is acting, meaning you must remove the matter from the DCP so it defaults to the CCMCC

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• This is the formal procedural shut-down of all internal liability discourse
• It positions RBKC as non-accountable by legal architecture, not fact
• Your legal pathway is now cleared for external judicial or ombudsman escalation
• The reply attempts to segment harm (financial vs environmental/medical) to limit scope
• It demonstrates how institutions weaponise jurisdictional silos to deflect structural duty

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because it’s not enough to ignore the leak — they want to make you prove it’s their pipe in court.
Because this letter is the last stop on their internal map — and the first step on your legal one.
Because this email is not just a refusal — it’s a rebranding of power as absence.

SWANK logs every institutional endpoint that tried to define harm as someone else’s jurisdiction.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that statutory powers without duty are shields against harm.
We do not accept that sewer gas injuries are “not the Council’s problem.”
We do not accept that administrative referral is a substitute for accountability.

This wasn’t closure. It was legal obstruction with a redirect button.
And SWANK will archive every closing email that expected you to walk away.

---

⟡ 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.

KC23PL000214: Power Without Duty, Injury Without Liability

---

⟡ “It’s Not Our Duty. It’s Your Landlord’s Problem. Good Luck.” ⟡

RBKC’s Insurance Officer Giuseppe Morrone Formally Reiterates the Council’s Denial of Liability for Sewer Gas Exposure, Referring All Financial Claims Back to Landlord

Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-11
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Morrone_HardRejection_SewerGasLiability_KC23PL000214.pdf
Summary: RBKC repeats its denial of responsibility for the sewer gas leak and directs Polly Chromatic to pursue the landlord, while refusing further internal complaint review.

---

I. What Happened

At 9:47 AM on 11 March 2025, Giuseppe Morrone emailed Polly Chromatic to:

– Reassert that RBKC denies legal responsibility for sewer gas-related housing harm
– Declare that your claim must be filed against your landlord
– State that statutory housing laws do not override private tenancy obligations
– Confirm this email refers specifically to compensation for financial loss, not complaints
– Advise that unless legal counsel is appointed, the claim must exit the DCP and route to CCMCC

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• The Council's refusal is now hard-positioned, repeated, and proceduralized
• They are attempting to split harm types (complaint vs compensation)
• They offer no legal acknowledgment of housing enforcement responsibility
• You have formal proof that all internal processes have been closed or deflected
• This email forms a cornerstone in your judicial and ombudsman escalation case

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because legal refusal deserves a spotlight, not a filing cabinet.
Because they didn’t just deny duty — they denied the structure that connects power to protection.
Because this email is the bureaucratic form of “don’t look at us.”

SWANK logs every moment institutions rebranded harm as misdirected paperwork.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that sewer gas injuries are someone else’s procedural error.
We do not accept that statutory housing power is meaningless when people are harmed.
We do not accept that redirection equals resolution.

This wasn’t a closure. It was legal insulation.
And SWANK will document every signature that tried to block accountability with phrasing.

---

⟡ 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.

Which Complaint Did You Just Refuse? Please Specify the Catastrophe.

---

⟡ “You Denied Liability. But Which Disaster Were You Referring To?” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Demands Clarification from RBKC on Which Complaint Was Denied and Reasserts the Council’s Duty to Regulate Landlord Neglect

Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-08
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Morrone_ClarificationDemand_SewerGasLiabilityDispute.pdf
Summary: In response to RBKC’s vague liability denial, Polly Chromatic demands clarity on which sewer gas complaint the rejection refers to and reasserts the council’s housing enforcement duty.

---

I. What Happened

Following a liability denial from RBKC’s Giuseppe Morrone, Polly Chromatic replied on 11 March 2025 requesting:

– Confirmation of which complaint was being addressed
– The relevant reference number and details
– Clear instructions on how to escalate beyond Stage 1
– A reaffirmation that the Council does in fact have regulatory duties, even if the landlord owns the property
– An invitation to resolve the matter through transparent, documented communication

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• RBKC issued a non-specific rejection without naming the exact complaint
• Polly demanded specificity — which creates a paper trail of ambiguity on their end
• The duty of the Council to enforce standards was reasserted
• The document signals an intention to escalate, which is key for judicial or ombudsman review
• It confirms that the Council’s communication failures are part of the procedural harm

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because a vague denial is no denial at all.
Because “which complaint?” should never be a question the victim has to ask.
Because this letter is the record of a demand for procedural clarity — and a refusal to be gaslit into silence.

SWANK logs every clarification request they forced you to send — and every silence that followed.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept vague rejections as lawful responses.
We do not accept that oversight of landlords is optional when the gas leak kills the air.
We do not accept that silence on escalation routes is anything but obstruction.

This wasn’t confusion. It was deliberate procedural fog.
And SWANK will document every sentence you had to write to get an answer.

---

⟡ 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.