The Mould Was Reported. The Gas Was Documented. The Borough Did Nothing.

---

⟡ SWANK Housing Neglect Filing ⟡

“You Let a Disabled Family Breathe Sewer Gas. We Filed the Complaint.”
Filed: 19 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/ENV-HOUSING/2025-05-19
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-19_SWANK_RBKCComplaint_HousingNeglect_EnvironmentalHealthFailure.pdf

---

I. The Walls Were Black. The Air Was Poisoned. The Council Did Nothing.

On 19 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. filed a formal complaint to The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) regarding catastrophic housing conditions — including sewer gas exposure, dangerous mould, and structural decay — in a tenancy legally occupied by a disabled parent and her children.

The hazard was reported.
The documentation was clear.

And the Council's response was silence, delay, and retaliation.

---

II. What the Complaint Documents

• That RBKC received video evidence of environmental hazard — and delayed response for months

• That officers were notified of respiratory collapse, medical damage, and a child’s deteriorating health

• That despite repeated notifications under the Housing Act 2004, no enforcement occurred

• That a pet died, the children fell ill, and the parent was hospitalised, all while waiting for repairs

This is not housing dispute.
This is statutory abandonment by a borough that knew better.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed This

Because the lie was already forming:

“She was unstable.”
“She caused the damage.”
“She didn’t inform the Council.”

So we filed — to expose what they received, when they received it, and how they chose inaction over enforcement.

This complaint now operates as:

• Legal evidence

• Historical record

• And a public ledger of breach, decay, and institutional rot

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not wait for repair notices.
We issue indictments.

We do not plead for assistance.
We publish abandonment.

We do not allow families to breathe poison in silence — while the borough cites procedure.

Let the record show:

The damage was real.
The Council was informed.
And now, the complaint is public — because SWANK exists, and the state cannot be trusted with the file.

---

⟡ 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.

He Read ‘Eosinophilic Poisoning’ — And Waived the Rent

---

⟡ “The Flat Made Me Sick. He Waived the Rent.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Informs Landlord of Eosinophilic Asthma and Sewer Gas Poisoning — Landlord Acknowledges Health Impact and Waives Rent

Filed: 3 November 2023
Reference: SWANK/HOUSING/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2023-11-03_SWANK_EmailThread_LandlordAcknowledgement_EosinophilicAsthma_SewerGasWaiver.pdf
Summary: Landlord confirms awareness of sewer gas injury and waives rent in writing, after Polly Chromatic reports serious health harm due to unsafe housing conditions.

---

I. What Happened

On 3 November 2023, Polly Chromatic emailed her landlord Elad to report:

– Acute illness from conditions at 37E Elgin Crescent
– Diagnosis of eosinophilic asthma exacerbated by sewer gas
– Inability to search for housing due to medical crisis
– Request for respect of lease terms while recovering

Elad responded:

– Confirming Polly should not pay rent that month
– Stating health and safety was the “top priority”
– Asking for hotel invoices for cost reimbursement
– Confirming he was awaiting Thames Water's repair update

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• The landlord explicitly acknowledges environmental harm
• This is a written admission of injury + financial burden
• Thames Water is named as a third-party delay factor
• The reply reflects legal responsibility and interim remedy (waived rent, reimbursement)
• This supports both the insurance case against RBKC and your housing damages claim

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when your body says “I’m poisoned” and the landlord says “don’t pay rent,” we document both.
Because this wasn’t sympathy — it was risk management dressed as courtesy.
Because this is the moment the gas wasn’t just real — it was acknowledged.

SWANK logs every admission where silence would’ve served them better.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that tenants must prove illness when landlords already knew.
We do not accept that rent is owed when lungs collapse.
We do not accept that reimbursement erases responsibility.

This wasn’t kindness. It was liability avoidance — and we archived it.

---

⟡ 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.

When the Council Asks If the Ceiling Fixed Itself

---

⟡ SWANK Housing Neglect Archive ⟡
“Can You Update Us On Whether We Did Our Job?”
Filed: 26 October 2023
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/LEAK-DORNAN-01
📎 Download PDF – 2023-10-26_SWANK_RBKC_Leak_Complaint_Justine_Dornan.pdf

---

I. This Wasn’t Casework. It Was Administrative Gaslighting by Inquiry.

On 26 October 2023, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea responded to a housing complaint with a masterstroke of inversion:

“Could you update us on whether the water was dealt with?”

Translation: We are not here to confirm resolution. We are here to request evidence of your own continued suffering.

Instead of assuring, they inquired.
Instead of fixing, they redirected.
Instead of documenting the outcome of their own intervention, they asked the vulnerable tenant to report back — like a subcontractor with no salary, no authority, and no recourse.

This is not public service.
It is institutional dampness — literal and bureaucratic.

---

II. What the Correspondence Confirms

That RBKC Environmental Health:

• Treated health-endangering damp as an open-ended anecdote

• Made no mention of follow-up inspection, action, or confirmation of remedy

• Requested a phone call despite the known written-only adjustment

• Failed to offer any structural, medical, or safeguarding consideration in response

And that the line between indifference and procedure has all but vanished.

This email wasn’t just a failure to follow up.
It was a formal reminder that nothing had ever been followed through.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because requesting an update on your own unfulfilled duty is not just negligent — it’s humiliating by design.
Because housing neglect often arrives wearing a civil tone and a council logo.
Because being asked to confirm that your living space is still unsafe is the cruelest form of outsourced compliance.

We filed this because:

• This is how housing departments hide rot — not just in ceilings, but in policy

• The burden of reporting was passed back to the person already harmed

• No apology, no urgency, no solution — just damp and a digital shrug

Let the record show:

The ceiling peeled.
The floor warped.
The air thickened.
And the council’s reply? “Did that all stop yet?”

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept emails that pose as updates when they are admissions of failure.
We do not accept that health-threatening damp should be “confirmed” by the person reporting it.
We do not accept disability-breaching phone requests under the guise of helpfulness.

Let the record show:

This wasn’t follow-up.
It was abdication.
And SWANK — logs every polite atrocity in the annals of institutional erosion.

Because sometimes, the mould on the wall grows faster than the bureaucracy meant to stop it.

---

⟡ 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.

He Promised Reimbursement. He Delivered a Crime Scene.

---

⟡ The Landlord Who Evicted Us with Sewer Gas ⟡

Filed: 19 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HOUSING/AIRROCK-EJECTION
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-19_SWANK_Complaint_Landlord_EladKatz_AirRock_ConstructiveEviction_DisabilityHousingBreach.pdf

---

I. He Promised Reimbursement. He Delivered a Crime Scene.

This complaint against Elad Katz, operating under AirRock UK, sets out the legal and material basis for constructive eviction due to:

• Prolonged sewer gas exposure at 37 Elgin Crescent

• Failure to remediate hazardous conditions

• Withholding of agreed reimbursements

• Breach of disability accommodations, tenancy duty, and housing law

The flat became uninhabitable.
The air became dangerous.
And the landlord — became legally irrelevant.

---

II. What Was Promised. What Was Weaponised.

This was not a dispute over rent.
This was housing by chemical warfare.

The complaint evidences:

• Internal confirmation of known gas leaks

• Negligence in coordinating repair or relocation

• Evasion of legal liability disguised as polite delay

• A landlord more responsive to image than asthma

He didn’t issue an eviction notice.
He used the plumbing.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because “constructive eviction” isn’t metaphor — it’s legal precision.
Because the landlord’s inaction constituted forced departure through toxicity.
Because disability law is not paused when a pipe bursts.

Let the record show:

• The tenancy was sabotaged

• The promises were performative

• The harm was chemical

• And SWANK — filed the eviction he pretended not to issue

This isn’t about poor maintenance.
It’s about calculated silence that cleared a flat without paperwork.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit landlords to escape liability through attrition.
We do not consider gas leaks a form of negotiation.
We do not redact the name of the man who let children inhale sulphide to avoid relocation costs.

Let the record show:

The air was lethal.
The flat was unlivable.
The contract was breached.
And SWANK — filed it all, for housing court and public record.

This is not tenant grievance.
It is disability eviction by sewer line — and we archived every molecule.

---

---

---

Closed Locally, Filed Nationally: When SWANK Picks Up What RBKC Drops

---

⟡ “They Closed the Complaint — Not the Mould.” ⟡
RBKC Refused to Investigate Housing Hazards and Disability Failures — So SWANK Took It to the Ombudsman

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-04
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Email_LGSCO_RBKCComplaintReferral_UnsafeHousingRetaliation.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint referral to the Ombudsman following RBKC’s inadequate Stage 2 response on housing conditions, disability discrimination, and procedural abuse.

---

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal referral to the LGSCO following the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s failure to resolve housing complaint Ref: 12060761. The initial complaint was lodged earlier in 2025 and escalated on 20 May. RBKC issued a final reply on 27 May 2025 — which ignored core issues:

– Hazardous housing conditions at 37 Elgin Crescent
– Failure to act by Environmental Health
– Ignored requests for disability adjustments
– Evidence of retaliation following complaints
– Negligence by officer Hardeep Kundi

The letter confirms medical harm to the sender and children, and states this matter is also part of an active civil claim.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC failed to fulfil its statutory housing and safeguarding duties
• Environmental Health declined to act despite clear hazards
• Reasonable adjustment duties under the Equality Act 2010 were ignored
• The complaint trail shows a pattern of procedural retaliation
• Council processes collapsed at Stage 2, requiring ombudsman escalation
• The issue is not just administrative — it’s structural negligence resulting in medical harm

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this letter marks the official transition from local denial to national oversight.
Because when housing is hazardous and the council’s final word is deflection, the archive must become a megaphone.
Because it’s not just about mould or negligence — it’s about the machinery that protects both.

SWANK logs the chain of evasion and the exact moment the system was formally told: You do not close this. We escalate it.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that disability-related housing complaints can be closed without action.
We do not accept that safeguarding failures disappear once a reply is issued.
We do not accept that the Ombudsman is a last resort — they are an evidentiary witness.

This wasn’t a referral. It was an audit handoff.
And SWANK will retain every submission the state hoped would be lost in escalation.

---

⟡ 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.