Chromatic v. Elgin Crescent & Co (Sewage Damage, Voice Loss, and Safeguarding Disgrace)

---

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue

The Flat That Tried to Kill Us: Sewage, Surveillance, and Section 20 Pressure

Filed Date: 14 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A11-ELGIN-CHAT
Court File Name: 2025-07-14_Addendum_ElginCrescent_HousingHazard_WhatsAppEvidence
1-line Summary: WhatsApp chat with landlord confirms sewage-related housing hazard, illness, displacement, and ignored safety warnings.

---

I. What Happened

This document contains a WhatsApp transcript between Polly Chromatic and Elad Katz, landlord agent for the hazardous tenancy at 37E Elgin Crescent, W11 2JD. The messages span June to December 2023 and chronicle a months-long pattern of:

• Neglected repairs

• Exposure to cracked sewer pipes

• Repeated illness of Polly and her four children

• Admissions by the agent that Thames Water and communal building managers were involved

• Polly's inability to remain in the home due to severe asthma attacks, lost voice, and dizziness

• Eventual forced hotel displacement

• And—finally—Elad’s departure, handing the case to Chestertons.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This transcript provides real-time, contemporaneous evidence that:

• The housing was medically unsafe.

• The landlord and agent were repeatedly informed of health risks.

• The situation required Thames Water intervention.

• The family was displaced due to environmental illness.

• Polly explicitly stated that she could not speak due to the damage caused by the flat, months prior to her documented voice impairment diagnosis.

• These issues predated Westminster’s safeguarding escalation—rendering the subsequent retaliatory EPO both procedurally and morally perverse.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

SWANK London Ltd. is formally recording this chat to refute Westminster Children’s Services' insinuation that the family’s housing concerns were unfounded or secondary. The cause of medical trauma, silence, and displacement is clearly established here. This chat is a pre-safeguarding snapshot of the actual origin of institutional harm—before the narrative was weaponised against the mother.

---

IV. Violations

• Article 8, ECHR – Violation of the right to home and family life

• Children Act 1989 – Breach of duty to support a family in environmental danger

• Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate Polly’s disability

• UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Denial of health-related accommodation

• Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 – Failure to act on known sewer contamination

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Institutional complicity in the outcome of her vocal and physical impairment

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This document confirms the mother repeatedly raised concerns about illness and uninhabitable conditions prior to any social work intervention. Westminster’s failure to acknowledge the timeline of causality constitutes gross negligence and undermines the lawfulness of the children’s removal. The WhatsApp chat is not “informal” — it is a formal timeline of institutional breach, and it will be submitted in every forum necessary to restore this family’s rights.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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 Seal. No Reference. Still Filed. — The Justice System Can’t Pretend This Didn’t Happen

---

⟡ N1 Filed. Court Still Silent. ⟡

“I have not received confirmation of receipt, a sealed claim form, or any reference number.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/N1/CNBC-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_N1Claim_Simlett_v_MultipleDefendants_StatusRequest.pdf
A formal inquiry to the Central London County Court regarding the missing procedural confirmation for Simlett v. Multiple Defendants. The claim was filed. The silence is now filed too.

---

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, litigant and Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a written request to the Central London County Court for confirmation of her N1 civil claim, Simlett v. Multiple Defendants.

The claim was filed in early May 2025 and concerns:

• Clinical negligence

• Disability discrimination

• Safeguarding retaliation

Despite the gravity of the case, no sealed claim form, reference number, or acknowledgment had been received.

This letter:

• Reasserts the claim’s existence

• Demands procedural transparency

• Restates her legally protected written-only communication policy

---

II. What the Filing Establishes

• The N1 submission is on record, with date, content, and venue

• The court is now formally responsible for the delay

• Silence becomes procedural failure, not personal confusion

• Accountability begins here — not when the seal arrives, but when the file was first delivered

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because court silence, like institutional silence, is a tactic.

When the claim involves multiple public bodies,
When the allegations include retaliation and medical harm,
And when the court doesn’t respond —
The delay becomes evidence.

This isn’t an update request.
It’s a jurisdictional receipt — signed, dated, and archived.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that claims disappear because courts pause.
We do not accept procedural fog as legal response.
We do not accept the idea that sealed = real, and everything else is provisional.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the seal hasn’t come,
We still file.
If the court didn’t reply,
We still archive.
And if no reference is issued,
We make one ourselves — and type it in bold.

“Although an initial email acknowledgment was received, no sealed claim form or formal case reference had been issued at the time of this filing. This request documents that procedural gap.”

---

⟡ 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.