⟡ “We Regret the Inconvenience of Your Collapsing Sewer.” ⟡
A Flooded Flat, a Dead Cat, and a Claims Form: Customer Service, Rebranded as Tragedy
Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/THAMESWATER/SEWER-DISASTER
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Complaint_ThamesWater_SewerGasAndDisplacement.pdf
Thames Water responds to catastrophic sewer collapse with condolences, a claims form, and no admission of liability.
I. What Happened
On 3 June 2025, Thames Water formally responded to Polly Chromatic’s letter dated 20 May, which detailed months of documented sewer gas exposure and water intrusion at 37 Elgin Crescent between August and November 2023. The letter acknowledges:
The family was displaced.
A pet was lost.
Health was severely impacted.
A collapsed pipe under the property caused repeated internal flooding.
Despite these admissions, Thames Water’s response framed the issue as “customer dissatisfaction” and provided a personal injury claims form — to be handled by insurers — rather than any formal admission or apology. No explanation was offered for the delay in repair, despite numerous mitigation visits logged over several months.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Environmental health catastrophe spanning at least seven months
A collapsed pipe confirmed by engineers, with full sewer exposure under the family home
Medical impact and displacement acknowledged, but minimised through corporate euphemism
Pet death, emotional trauma, and exposure to harmful gases described as “inconvenience”
Thames Water’s suggestion of a “goodwill gesture,” while explicitly denying any legal responsibility
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because corporate institutions should not be permitted to handle human trauma with sterilised template language and third-party insurance redirection. This wasn’t just water damage. It was housing loss, respiratory injury, emotional devastation, and documented environmental risk — and it was met with an attachment. A form. A silence masked as empathy.
SWANK logged this because loss disguised as paperwork is not reparation.
Because families are not insurance liabilities.
Because legal responsibility begins long before brand damage control.
IV. Violations
Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Failure to control harmful emissions and exposure
Housing Act 2004 – Premises rendered uninhabitable due to known hazards
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (right to private and family life) violated by prolonged environmental neglect
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 – Misleading presentation of responsibility and remedy
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to recognise impact on disabled tenant requiring safe housing
V. SWANK’s Position
SWANK does not accept insurance claims as a substitute for institutional accountability. The response from Thames Water is a masterclass in corporate minimisation: the bureaucratisation of catastrophe. A family lost their home, their health, and their cat — but what they gained was a form to complete and a promise to "look into" goodwill.
This wasn’t service recovery.
This was polite disassociation.
This was legal risk management disguised as empathy.
And SWANK will document every sentence of 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.