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.

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.