You Said It Wasn’t Yours — So Why Didn’t You Stop It?

---

⟡ “I May Not Be a UK Citizen — But Your Legal Duties Still Apply.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Replies to RBKC’s Insurance Officer, Reframing Liability Beyond Ownership and Defining the Council’s Possible Role in Ongoing Housing Harm

Filed: 10 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-06
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-10_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Morrone_LiabilityClarification_NIStatement_HazardOversight.pdf
Summary: Responding to RBKC's attempt to sidestep responsibility, Polly Chromatic formally requests clarification of the Council's housing oversight, hazard response, and regulatory duties — while noting non-citizenship status.

---

I. What Happened

On 10 March 2025, following a liability delay from RBKC Insurance Officer Giuseppe Morrone, Polly Chromatic (Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) responded with a structured clarification:

– Declined to provide a National Insurance number due to non-citizenship
– Requested confirmation of RBKC’s regulatory obligations around housing hazard prevention
– Asked for disclosure of any prior reports or internal records tied to Flat E, 37 Elgin Crescent
– Questioned RBKC’s role in inspection, compliance, and enforcement related to the faulty gas pipe
– Kept the tone cooperative — but placed the burden of clarity back on the Council

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• RBKC’s effort to derail the claim on procedural grounds (NI number) is neutralised
• You legally reposition the liability question toward oversight, response, and statutory role — not mere ownership
• The Council is now on record as being expected to explain its inaction
• This is a tactical letter — it reads cooperative, but it cements RBKC’s duty to answer

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when institutions hide behind “that’s not our pipe,” the archive demands they show us the blueprint.
Because duty doesn’t vanish at the title deed — it lingers in the mould.
Because this letter flips the liability lens from property lines to regulatory failure.

SWANK documents when the archive stopped asking for help — and started demanding accountability.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that non-citizenship erases a Council’s legal duty.
We do not accept that oversight means silence.
We do not accept that a missing NI number is a valid reason to ignore gas leaks and chronic harm.

This wasn’t a reply. It was a procedural pivot.
And SWANK will archive every moment the Council tried to draw a boundary — and you redrew the map.

---

⟡ 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 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.

Complaint Closed. Mold Unresolved. Discrimination Unacknowledged.

---

⟡ “You Can Escalate Now. We’re Done Listening.” ⟡
RBKC Formally Closes Housing Complaint 12060761 Without Remediation — Forcing Escalation to the Ombudsman

Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-06
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Stage2ComplaintClosure_HousingRef12060761.pdf
Summary: RBKC confirms final response to a housing complaint involving unsafe conditions and discrimination, referring the matter to the LGSCO with no resolution.

---

I. What Happened

On 27 May 2025, RBKC Housing emailed Polly Chromatic (Noelle Meline) to close formal complaint Ref: 12060761, concerning:

– Unsafe housing at 37 Elgin Crescent
– Disability discrimination
– Failure of Environmental Health
– Officer negligence and procedural retaliation

The email acknowledges the case closure and redirects the complainant to the Local Government Ombudsman for further action. No resolution or acknowledgment of substantive allegations is included.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC concluded its internal process without resolving the complaint
• No factual rebuttal or remedy was offered
• The burden now shifts to the complainant to escalate to the Ombudsman
• The referral is standardised — but the original harm is left unaddressed
• This closure reinforces the pattern of institutional evasion through procedural completion

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how systems close files without fixing harm.
Because this letter ends one jurisdiction and begins another — and both must be archived.
Because what isn’t said in the response is as damning as what is: no denial, no resolution, no accountability.

SWANK documents closure events as turning points — not endpoints.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that structural harm can be concluded administratively.
We do not accept that internal policy processes equal justice.
We do not accept that “you may now escalate” is a substitute for action.

This wasn’t a conclusion. This was a referral of responsibility.
And SWANK will archive every door they shut — before we knock on the next one.

---

⟡ 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.

You Escalated. They Replied With: ‘We Already Replied.’

---

⟡ “We Sent the Outcome. We Won’t Send It Again.” ⟡
RBKC Acknowledges Stage 2 Escalation But Refuses to Reissue Outcome, Despite Ongoing Housing Harm and Procedural Retaliation

Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Stage2EscalationAcknowledgement_HousingComplaint12060761.pdf
Summary: RBKC responds to a formal Stage 2 escalation in the housing complaint trail but declines to restate the outcome or respond to ongoing allegations of neglect and retaliation.

---

I. What Happened

On 20 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a Stage 2 escalation to RBKC regarding Complaint Ref: 12060761. The complaint detailed:

– Dangerous housing conditions at 37 Elgin Crescent
– Mould, sewer gas, and damp exposure
– Medical harm to a disabled parent and her children
– Failure to provide written-only communication accommodations
– Retaliation for prior complaints
– Negligence by named officers, including Hardeep Kundi

RBKC replied on 27 May 2025 stating the outcome was already sent to the “registered email address” — without offering to confirm its content, provide clarification, or reopen dialogue.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC formally received and acknowledged your escalation
• They chose to withhold outcome content, citing GDPR, even though you're the complainant
• No procedural transparency or right of reply was offered
• Escalation is effectively blocked through form-based deflection
• It confirms that this matter is being simultaneously pursued via LGSCO and Housing Ombudsman pathways

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what procedural erasure looks like — a refusal to restate, reissue, or re-engage.
Because “we sent it before” is not a substitute for answering new allegations.
Because what gets withheld becomes part of the harm.

SWANK logs the institutional gatekeeping of complaint outcomes as evidence of deeper systemic evasion.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that outcomes should be withheld on a technicality from the person who submitted the complaint.
We do not accept that failure to acknowledge a Stage 2 escalation means it’s resolved.
We do not accept that housing complaints can be closed while the mould and retaliation remain active.

This wasn’t just an email. This was the moment they told you not to ask again.
And SWANK will file every refusal disguised as privacy.

---

⟡ 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.