“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label SWANK N1 annex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SWANK N1 annex. Show all posts

£6.3 Million in Harm — Denied in Six Paragraphs


⟡ The Insurance Officer Who Rejected the Housing Act by Email ⟡

Filed: 13 March 2025
Annex to N1 Claim: RBKC v. Simlett (£6.3M)
📎 Download PDF — 2025-03-13_SWANK_N1Annex_RBKC_InsuranceDenial_GiuseppeMorrone_SewerGas_HousingActBreach.pdf

I. £6.3 Million in Harm — Denied in Six Paragraphs

This document records the precise moment RBKC's Insurance Department, via Giuseppe Morrone, declined liability for:

  • Sewer gas exposure at 37 Elgin Crescent

  • Prolonged housing disrepair and tenant harm

  • Disability-based vulnerability

  • Respiratory crises and environmental collapse

The response?
An elegant paragraph of bureaucratic stillness that managed to deny statute, medical record, and common decency all at once.

“We do not consider this to be a legal matter.”
— And thus, they made it one.

II. The Logic of Denial in Passive Voice

Morrone’s letter:

  • Avoids the word “disability”

  • Refers to environmental poisoning as “alleged odour”

  • Suggests no action due to “third-party liability” complexity

  • Fails to cite any legal grounds for the denial itself

It’s not just that he said no.
It’s that he said it like a man paid to believe nothing happened.

The air was toxic. The tone was neutral. The email — archived.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when the council’s insurer declines a formal hazard report, they are not protecting public funds — they are endorsing harm by silence.
Because “not our problem” is not a valid response to gas exposure and four minor children.
Because denial without investigation is evidentiary gold, and SWANK files it with pleasure.

Let the record show:

  • The evidence was ignored

  • The insurance review was cursory

  • The Housing Act was effectively dismissed

  • And SWANK — bound the whole refusal to your £6.3M claim

This isn’t indemnity.
It’s dereliction, formatted in legal stationery.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit insurers to sidestep statutory duty via email template.
We do not accept that medical harm is “not covered.”
We do not redact the names of those who decline liability while children wheeze.

Let the record show:

The damage was reported.
The email arrived.
The law was ignored.
And SWANK — annexed it directly to the court.

This isn’t legal ambiguity.
It’s documented non-response — and it now carries a £6.3 million price tag.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions