Health Priority, Rent Waived — But No Repairs in Sight

---

⟡ “You Don’t Need to Pay Rent — The Gas Made You Sick.” ⟡

Elad Acknowledges Severe Health Impact from Flat Conditions, Waives Rent, and Promises Reimbursement While Awaiting Thames Water Repairs

Filed: 3 November 2023
Reference: SWANK/HOUSING/LANDLORD-01
📎 Download PDF – 2023-11-03_SWANK_Email_Landlord_HealthHazardAdmission_NoRentPromise_ThamesWaterDelay.pdf
Summary: Landlord admits flat caused health issues and offers rent waiver and cost reimbursement. Confirms ongoing delay from Thames Water regarding essential repairs.

---

I. What Happened

On 3 November 2023, Polly Chromatic emailed her landlord describing serious illness from sewer gas exposure. The landlord, Elad, responded:

– Stating your health and safety is the “top priority”
– Confirming you should not pay rent that month
– Asking for hotel receipts to reimburse costs
– Admitting he is still waiting on Thames Water’s repair schedule
– Acknowledging your difficulty in relocating due to illness

This exchange took place after emergency evacuation due to housing uninhabitability.

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• The landlord admits the flat was unsafe and caused harm
• There is written consent not to pay rent — which negates later rent pursuit
• Thames Water is identified as a third-party delay factor
• A clear causal link between property conditions and medical harm is outlined
• This forms a legal basis for housing disrepair claims and financial injury

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when the landlord waives rent, it means the problem wasn’t imaginary.
Because reimbursement promises are admissions — and delays are no longer abstract.
Because this is the moment the tenant named the hazard, and the landlord agreed it existed.

SWANK documents every moment the truth slipped through the apology.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that rent is owed on uninhabitable housing.
We do not accept that health-damaging conditions can be excused by “waiting on Thames Water.”
We do not accept that financial harm ends when gas exposure begins.

This wasn’t kindness. It was contractual acknowledgment.
And SWANK will archive every time harm was admitted — but not repaired.

---

⟡ 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.

Unsafe, Unlivable, and Now Officially Escalated

---

⟡ “The Moldy Flat Became a Legal Archive.” ⟡

Formal Complaint Sent to Housing Ombudsman Alleging Landlord and Council Negligence Leading to Unsafe Living Conditions and Financial Harm

Filed: 10 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/HO/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-10_SWANK_Email_HousingOmbudsman_Submission_HousingNegligenceComplaint.pdf
Summary: SWANK confirms submission of a formal complaint to the Housing Ombudsman regarding statutory neglect by both landlord and local authority in maintaining safe, habitable housing conditions.

---

I. What Happened

On 10 March 2025, a formal complaint was submitted by Polly Chromatic to the Housing Ombudsman. The subject line made clear:

– Both the landlord and RBKC are accused of negligence
– The situation resulted in unsafe living conditions
– There were financial losses connected to the disrepair and oversight failures

While the full complaint body was in the attachment, this email serves as the submission confirmation and jurisdictional trigger for Ombudsman involvement.

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• You formally activated Ombudsman oversight on 10 March 2025
• The complaint names both private and public bodies as responsible
• This email serves as proof of escalation beyond local resolution
• It can be paired with RBKC’s refusal letters and court filings to show full exhaustion of internal routes

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because escalation is part of exhaustion — and exhaustion is part of evidence.
Because this email is the moment the archive moved outside the borough.
Because the mould wasn’t just medical — it was municipal.

SWANK documents every threshold crossed in pursuit of lawful shelter.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that unsafe housing can be blamed on a landlord while the Council fails to inspect.
We do not accept that financial harm from statutory neglect is incidental.
We do not accept that silence at local level should block structural oversight.

This wasn’t just an email. It was jurisdictional invocation.
And SWANK will record every time oversight was demanded.

---

⟡ 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.

We Asked for Help. You Called It Optional.

---

⟡ “If You Don’t Owe a Duty — Then Who Does?” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Formally Rejects RBKC’s Liability Denial, Asserts Council's Statutory Housing Duties, and Demands All Internal Complaint Records

Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-10
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Morrone_FinalChallenge_SewerGasLiability_ElginCrescent.pdf
Summary: Polly Chromatic issues a final written rebuttal to RBKC’s denial of liability, arguing statutory duty under housing law and demanding internal records and a route to escalation.

---

I. What Happened

This document, dated 11 March 2025, is a comprehensive rebuttal to Giuseppe Morrone’s liability denial and includes:

– A direct statement that RBKC’s power vs. duty argument is legally incorrect
– A list of five formal requests, including all internal records, complaint trails, and escalation instructions
– An explicit challenge to the attempted separation of harm and complaint
– A 14-day notice for further action: SAR, ombudsman complaint, and legal escalation
– Language asserting personal injury, emotional distress, and pet loss due to council inaction

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• Polly is notified and opposing the liability denial in writing
• She asserts the statutory obligation under the Housing Act and Environmental Protection Act
• The request for all internal documentation becomes part of the procedural audit trail
• The Council is put on notice of legal escalation and public oversight
• The letter uses legal tone and formatting, marking it as both advocacy and evidence

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what clarity sounds like after a denial.
Because when power hides behind policy, the archive reminds it what law looks like.
Because this letter is the formal line in the sand — and SWANK files the lines that become court timelines.

SWANK archives every refusal that demanded a stronger reply — and every reply that escalated the fight.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that harm can be administratively reclassified to avoid liability.
We do not accept that housing enforcement is optional when the air is toxic.
We do not accept that powers without duties mean families suffer without recourse.

This wasn’t just a rebuttal. It was a procedural declaration.
And SWANK will archive every time the archive reminded the Council it could read the law.

---

⟡ 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.