“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label housing hazard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing hazard. Show all posts

R (Chromatic) v Royal Incompetence: The Sewage Leak That Dared to Email Twice



🏛️ SWANK London Ltd.

Environmental Catastrophe in a Chelsea Basement: The Sewage Leak That Westminster Forgot

A Housing Exposure Scandal Ignored in 350 Emails or More


Metadata

Filed: 11 July 2025
Reference Code: PC-ADD-012
Court File Name: 2025-07-11_Addendum_HousingHazard_ElginCrescentSewageExposure
Summary: RBKC and Westminster failed to act on a sewage leak that poisoned a vulnerable household and triggered retaliatory safeguarding.


I. What Happened

Between June and October 2023, Polly Chromatic and her four asthmatic children lived at Flat E, 37 Elgin Crescent, a basement property in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The flat became a biohazard after raw sewage overflowed into the property, emitting toxic fumes and causing respiratory distress across the household.

Polly reported the environmental hazard repeatedly — to Environmental Health, to Housing Services, and to the landlord’s representative. The result?
Crickets.
The family was ultimately forced into emergency hotel accommodation, unaided and unafforded, while RBKC and Westminster maintained a bureaucratic shrug.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • RBKC Environmental Health logged the incident under case ref. 333267

  • Emails to Hardeep Kundi, Housing Officer, confirm toxicity due to sewer fumes

  • Elad Katz (landlord’s agent) was aware and later replaced due to mismanagement

  • Multiple emails show unresolved communication failures despite the property being uninhabitable

  • Despite hundreds of emails, this environmental crisis was never factored into the Local Authority’s safeguarding narrative


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because toxicity is not a parenting problem.
Because institutions with inboxes full of unread cries for help should not govern vulnerable families.
And because ignoring 350+ emails is not policy — it is negligence dressed in lanyard casualwear.

This was not a minor mould patch or a leaky tap. It was a full-fledged respiratory hazard in a known high-risk family, compounded by asthma, disability, and procedural cruelty. This hazard was then erased from context when social services later claimed instability without acknowledging the reason for the forced hotel relocation.


IV. Violations

  • Environmental Health Duty Breach – Failure to act on life-threatening sewer gas exposure

  • Safeguarding Misrepresentation – Exclusion of known hazard from children’s welfare narrative

  • Procedural Disregard – Local Authority ignored material evidence repeatedly submitted

  • Disability Discrimination – Chronic respiratory illness dismissed despite medical disclosures


V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. holds that environmental exposure to sewage in council-registered properties—particularly when vulnerable children are present—warrants immediate action, not spreadsheet avoidance.

This archive entry is formally logged to establish that the Local Authority:

  • Had the evidence,

  • Had the contact,

  • And chose not to care.

Where institutions pretend not to read, we document every unread email as an indictment.


⟡ 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.

Chromatic v Thames Water: The Form as Institutional Survival Tactic



⟡ “Thank You for Surviving the Collapse. Please Return This Form.” ⟡
A Personal Injury Packet in Response to Death, Displacement, and Documented Neglect

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/THAMESWATER/FORM-DEFLECTION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Reply_ThamesWater_ClaimsFormFollowUp.pdf
Thames Water follows up on a sewer gas catastrophe with a polite reminder to submit the form — nothing more.


I. What Happened

On 4 June 2025, Emma Namba from Thames Water’s Customer Relations team sent a follow-up email regarding the sewer collapse, displacement, and personal injury endured by Polly Chromatic and her children at 37 Elgin Crescent. The message contained no acknowledgement of the gravity of the harm — no discussion of risk mitigation, safeguarding, or health inspection records.

Instead, the message simply re-attached the personal injury claims form, advised it be returned to an email address, and committed vaguely to “a further update on or before 17 June.” This is the second consecutive response that refers to legal and medical trauma using the language of service enhancement.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • A catastrophic housing failure was reduced to a customer service loop

  • No admission of fault or investigation into long-term risk or failure

  • Emotional and physical injuries, displacement, and the death of a family pet met with an attachment

  • The family is being pushed into insurance-channelled redress, not public accountability

  • Thames Water continues to use brand language to manage structural failure


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the only thing more negligent than ignoring a sewer collapse is reformatting it into an admin task. This wasn’t just another form. It was a strategy: convert pain into paperwork.

By failing to address the timeline, the delay, or the engineering responsibility — Thames Water signals its position clearly. The death of a cat, the loss of a home, and the medical injuries sustained by children are not classified as crisis.
They’re “claims.”
They’re PDF-able.
They’re payable — if you survive long enough to attach proof.


IV. Violations

  • Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Prolonged exposure to sewer gas in a domestic setting

  • Housing Act 2004 – Collapsed infrastructure rendered the premises unsafe and uninhabitable

  • Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 – Misleading framing of catastrophic event as mere service failure

  • Equality Act 2010 – Continued failure to accommodate or escalate for a disabled household

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Interference with family life, security, and shelter


V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK does not recognise administrative follow-up as resolution. This email, like the one before it, reflects a company more invested in documentation than duty. Thames Water’s approach to mass exposure, delayed repairs, and post-traumatic harm was not remedial. It was procedural containment.

This wasn’t just minimisation.
It was infrastructure-violence folded into corporate politeness.
And SWANK will document every polite deflection.


⟡ 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.



Sewer Gas. Four Children. One Council Who Did Nothing.



⟡ The Flat That Tried to Kill Us ⟡

Filed: May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HSE/ELGIN-HAZARD
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05_SWANK_HSE_Complaint_ElginCrescent_SewerGasExposure_RBKC_ThamesWater_LandlordNegligence.pdf


I. Sewer Gas. Four Children. One Council Who Did Nothing.

This formal complaint, submitted to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), names:

  • The landlord of 37 Elgin Crescent (Elad Katz / AirRock Group)

  • Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  • RBKC Environmental Health Department

The allegations:

  • Prolonged and dangerous hydrogen sulphide exposure

  • Multiple hospitalisations and respiratory crises

  • Ignored disability accommodations and medical evidence

  • Structural neglect and utilities denial despite statutory notice

This wasn’t damp.
It was airborne threat by negligence — and they let children inhale it.


II. What They Let Us Breathe

The complaint details:

  • Failed intervention despite formal gas detection

  • “Low-risk” minimisation language while symptoms escalated

  • Repeated obfuscation from Thames Water, demanding proof of fatality before action

  • RBKC’s refusal to act on statutory duties after complaints were filed

This wasn’t a misunderstanding.
It was a coordinated quieting of risk — and of the family it harmed.

We suffocated quietly.
The archive responds loudly.


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no family should need a legal team just to breathe.
Because disability adjustments do not dissolve under gas.
Because when three institutions coordinate inaction, they become co-defendants, not departments.

Let the record show:

  • The symptoms were reported

  • The air was toxic

  • The medical records were real

  • And SWANK — filed it to the regulator with oxygen and timestamps

This isn’t housing complaint.
It’s environmental evidence framed in child safety and court language.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit structural endangerment to be filed as “maintenance delay.”
We do not accept that disabled tenants must prove harm before officials intervene.
We do not redact the names of those who ignored respiratory collapse.

Let the record show:

The gas came in.
The help didn’t.
The invoices were silent.
And SWANK — filed the air they made unbreathable.

This isn’t an allegation.
It’s sealed evidence — and they’ve already inhaled their liability.







Chestertons Took the Keys. They Ignored the Gas.



⟡ The Managing Agent Who Inherited a Crime Scene — and Did Nothing ⟡

Filed: 19 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/ESTATE/CHESTERTONS-INERTIA
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-19_SWANK_Complaint_Chestertons_ManagingAgentFailure_ElginCrescent_SewerGas_DisabilityRisk.pdf


I. Chestertons Took the Keys. They Ignored the Gas.

When Chestertons assumed property management of 37 Elgin Crescent in May 2025, they inherited more than a flat — they inherited:

  • A medical hazard formally recorded with HSE

  • Verified correspondence citing respiratory collapse

  • A vulnerable tenant with multiple protected disabilities

  • A landlord (Elad Katz/AirRock) with a litigation trail dating back years

Their response?

A breezy silence.
Not even a “Dear Tenant.”
Just procedural ghosting by brand name.


II. When Management Becomes Accessory

The file details:

  • Zero contact following notification of chemical hazard

  • Refusal to acknowledge prior environmental investigations

  • No provision of alternate accommodation

  • Total disregard for tenants’ rights under the Equality Act 2010 and Housing Health & Safety Rating System (HHSRS)

They assumed legal control.
They ignored legal duty.
And now — they're included in the record.


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because estate agents who inherit risk also inherit responsibility.
Because management is not a buffer against liability — it is the seat of it.
Because when gas, collapse, and children are on file, silence is participation.

Let the record show:

  • The agency was informed

  • The hazards were documented

  • The response was absence

  • And SWANK — filed it for citation, litigation, and regulator review

This isn’t negligence.
It’s decorated complicity in property brochure font.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit agents to distance themselves from harm once they assume control.
We do not accept that gas, illness, and inaction can be disclaimed with rebranding.
We do not redact real estate agencies from hazard chains.

Let the record show:

The danger continued.
The agency arrived.
The inaction remained.
And SWANK — archived the entire sequence.

This is not “a new chapter.”
It’s the same crime — under different stationery.