“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 disability harm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disability harm. Show all posts

I Called About the Fumes. He Promised to Call Back. He Never Did.


⟡ SWANK Environmental Harm Archive ⟡

“This Is the Email That Let the Gas Keep Leaking.”
Filed: 2 November 2023
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/FUMES/KUNDI-CHAIN-2023
📎 Download PDF – 2023-11-02_SWANK_RBKC_HardeepKundi_ToxicFumes_EmailChain_ElginEnvironmentalNeglect.pdf

I. A Gas Leak Was Reported. A Call Was Promised. No One Came.

On 2 November 2023, Hardeep Kundi of RBKC Private Sector Housing replied to an email documenting toxic environmental conditions at a rented property on Elgin Crescent — specifically, persistent sewer gas exposure.

The reply was short. Polite.

“I’ll speak to the landlord.”

He did not.
The fumes continued.
The tenant — a disabled parent with four children — collapsed days later.

II. What the Email Chain Reveals

  • That Category 1 housing hazard was clearly reported

  • That the officer acknowledged receipt and appeared responsive

  • That no follow-up inspection, enforcement, or even written advice followed

  • That RBKC had early, internal knowledge of a medically dangerous housing defect and took no meaningful action

This isn’t neglect of process.
This is neglect as process.

III. Why SWANK Archived It

Because public authorities routinely say:

“We were not made aware.”

This file says otherwise.

We archived this because:

  • It establishes the first institutional timestamp of environmental harm

  • It exposes the performative layer of responsiveness

  • It documents the false hope cycle: concern expressed, follow-up evaded, danger sustained

Let the record show:

The officer was informed.
The air was poisoned.
The promise was procedural.
And the result was harm.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept kindness in tone as substitute for compliance in action.
We do not confuse acknowledgment with remedy.
We do not permit housing officers to nod politely while a child breathes methane.

Let the record show:

This email chain is polite.
It is professional.
It is absolutely damning.

This is not communication.
This is the first institutional silence — dressed in nine civil words.

⟡ 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.


No comments:

Complaint Received. Clarification Requested. Accountability Postponed.


⟡ SWANK Police Misconduct Archive ⟡

“They Asked Who I Meant. As If It Wasn’t Written.”
Filed: 3 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/DPS/PC01767/2025-04-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-03_SWANK_MetPolice_Response_Request_DiscriminationComplaint_PC01767.pdf

I. They Received a Complaint. Then Forgot How to Read.

On 3 April 2025, SWANK London Ltd. received a reply from the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) regarding our formal complaint of disability discrimination, safeguarding negligence, and procedural harm.

Their reply?

A request for clarification on “who the complaint is about.”

Despite:

  • A subject line identifying the Met

  • An incident described in full

  • An original complaint addressed directly to them

II. What the Email Reveals

  • That even the simplest discrimination complaints are rerouted into semantic obscurity

  • That procedural delay is cloaked in polite inquiry

  • That DPS correspondence routinely reframes misconduct as:

    “a misunderstanding between services”
    Rather than institutional accountability

  • That despite having email headers, dates, and diagnoses, the system's first move is to disorient

This isn’t confusion.
It’s strategy — and it’s archived.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because we no longer entertain the dance.
Because clarity is not the issue — institutional refusal is.

We logged this because:

  • It shows how early-stage derailment works

  • It previews how complaints are softened into “communication issues”

  • It marks the first excuse, so it can never be used again without contradiction

Let the record show:

They asked who the complaint was about.
It said "Met Police" in the subject line.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not re-explain what was already made plain.
We publish the question — and let the public answer it.

We do not interpret bad faith as administrative error.
We interpret it as foreseeable, strategic misdirection.

Let the record show:

The complaint was filed.
The facts were laid out.
And the first reply — was a pretend misunderstanding.

This isn’t dialogue.
It’s delay-by-design.
And now, it’s in the archive.

⟡ 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.


No comments:

Giuseppe Said 'No Liability' — We Sent Him the Housing Act


⟡ “The Mould Is Real. So Is the Law.” ⟡

RBKC Told the Archive It Wasn’t Liable — So We Sent Them a Statute-by-Statute Reminder
 
Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-04
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Email_RBKC_GiuseppeMorrone_HousingNeglectStatutoryBreach.pdf
Summary: Formal liability dispute filed with RBKC’s Insurance Officer Giuseppe Morrone, citing statutory breaches under housing and environmental health law. Includes demand for complaint records and legal clarification.

I. What Happened

On 11 March 2025, SWANK Director Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett (Polly Chromatic) formally replied to Giuseppe Morrone, Senior Insurance Officer at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The message was triggered by RBKC’s attempt to deny liability for prolonged exposure to:

  • Toxic mould and damp

  • Sewer gas from blocked soil pipes

  • Environmental harm affecting a disabled parent and children

The reply cites breaches under the Housing Act 2004 and Environmental Protection Act 1990, reasserts previously ignored complaints, and demands internal records related to assessments of 37 Elgin Crescent, Flat E.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The Council failed its statutory duty to address Category 1 housing hazards

  • Repeated health complaints were logged but systematically unaddressed

  • There was no serious investigation, despite documented asthma, hospitalisation, and visible disrepair

  • Liability denial occurred without investigation, record disclosure, or environmental reinspection

  • The Council is now being held accountable in writing, with legal reference citations

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because refusing liability does not erase exposure.
Because legal obligations don’t dissolve when they’re inconvenient.
Because a damp Victorian flat with medical harm is not a “policy grey area” — it’s a statutory failure.

SWANK logs the law — and the silence that violated it.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that liability can be rejected without record review.
We do not accept that damp, sewer gas, and medical injury are “not actionable.”
We do not accept that officials can ignore housing law because they work in insurance.

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a legal counter-notification.
And SWANK will document every statute the council dared to sidestep.

⟡ 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.


No comments:

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.


No comments:

The Trauma Was in the Visits — And They Knew It Before They Retaliated.


⟡ “It’s Not Her. It’s the Ten Years of This.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Discloses Social Work-Triggered Trauma to NHS and Kirsty Hornal — Forwarded to Legal Counsel Before Safeguarding Escalation

Filed: 13 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-13_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_NHS_TraumaDisclosure_SocialWorkHistory.pdf
Summary: Early trauma disclosure email detailing ten years of emotional harm from repeated social work involvement. Sent to Kirsty Hornal and NHS, then forwarded to solicitor Laura Savage.

I. What Happened

On 13 February 2025, Polly Chromatic emailed both Philip Reid (NHS) and Kirsty Hornal (WCC) to express the emotional and psychological toll caused by years of routine social work visits. She wrote:

“It’s not Kirsty — it’s just the long trauma of having so many social workers in our lives… I spend so much time crying…”

She described:

  • Emotional collapse after court dates and social worker visits

  • Feelings of being turned away after asking for help

  • A pattern of being emotionally destabilized by procedural reminders

  • Her wish to keep medical care (Dr Reid) free from institutional interference

  • That this isn’t about Kirsty as a person, but the system’s legacy of harm

She then forwarded the message to solicitor Laura Savage for legal documentation and advice.

II. What the Record Establishes

• Kirsty Hornal and NHS received a direct trauma disclosure
• The message predates both the police report and PLO threats
• Polly explicitly separates individual behaviour from institutional harm
• The legal chain of evidence begins here — making this the first trauma-anchored communication in the retaliation chain

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because trauma disclosures aren’t rhetorical. They’re warnings.
Because “It’s not her — it’s the system” is both generous and damning.
Because this email proves they knew. And what came after proves they didn’t care.

SWANK archives every prelude to silence — especially when it was emotionally fluent and institutionally ignored.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that emotional collapse after state contact is incidental.
We do not accept that disclosures are valid only when framed clinically.
We do not accept that acknowledgment is optional after distress is written down.

This wasn’t an outburst. It was trauma intelligence — and SWANK recorded 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.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions