“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 neglect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing neglect. Show all posts

They Had the Emails. They Ignored the Gas.


⟡ SWANK Housing Correspondence Record ⟡

“The Borough Was Notified. The Emails Are Archived.”
Filed: 19 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/CORRESPONDENCE/HOUSING-FAILURE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-19_SWANK_RBKC_EmailCorrespondence_EnvironmentalNeglect_DisabilityResponse.pdf

I. They Opened the Emails. Then Did Nothing.

On 19 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. archived formal correspondence exchanged with officers at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, concerning catastrophic housing conditions, respiratory harm, and environmental degradation.

The evidence was not subtle.

  • Photos of blackened walls

  • Reports of sewer gas exposure

  • Records of breathlessness, collapse, and disability harm

The Council received every email.
The Council replied — with delays, evasion, and silence.

II. What the Emails Reveal

  • That RBKC was made fully aware of environmental hazards affecting a disabled tenant and children

  • That the emails include medical details, tenancy confirmations, urgent repair requests, and statutory citations

  • That the Borough had lawful obligations — under the Housing Act, the Equality Act, and environmental health law — and chose procedural stall instead

This isn’t just correspondence.
It’s archived delay — and it’s now public.

III. Why SWANK Archived It

Because when the Borough denies knowledge,
we produce the timestamp.

Because when they say, “You should have contacted us,”
we present the full chain — and name the officers who were copied in.

Because bureaucracy has perfected the art of saying,

“We didn’t know.”
And we’ve perfected the rebuttal:
“We have the emails.”

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not wait for Freedom of Information.
We release our own.

We do not permit plausible deniability.
We design impossibility of denial.

Let the record show:

They were informed.
They were given evidence.
They did not act.
And now, the correspondence is preserved — in SWANK’s archive, not theirs.

This isn’t communication.
This is evidence of deliberate inaction.

⟡ 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:

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.


No comments:

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.

No comments:

A Shadow Report from the Mother They Tried to Silence


⟡ When the Kingdom Fails, We File to Geneva ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/UN/CRPD-UK-VIOLATIONS
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_UN_CRPD_ShadowReport_DisabilityRetaliation_HousingNeglect_UKArticles5_7_16_17_19_25_28_31.pdf

I. A Shadow Report from the Mother They Tried to Silence

This report — formally submitted to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) — is not a plea. It is a record of UK state misconduct, structured in sovereign grammar and legal disdain.

It details:

  • Retaliatory safeguarding threats

  • Refusal to honour written-only communication adjustments

  • Medical endangerment during known disability episodes

  • Chronic housing neglect and obstruction

  • Data concealment, access obstruction, and gaslighting in policy drag

Each violation is matched to its corresponding Article under the CRPD.
Each abuse is annotated, indexed, and unmissable.

This is not anecdote.
This is evidence — internationally styled.

II. Articles Breached (With Formal Disregard)

The report documents violations of the following CRPD protections:

  • Article 5 – Equality and Non-Discrimination

  • Article 7 – Children with Disabilities

  • Article 16 – Freedom from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse

  • Article 17 – Protection of the Integrity of the Person

  • Article 19 – Living Independently and Being Included in the Community

  • Article 25 – Health

  • Article 28 – Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection

  • Article 31 – Statistics and Data Collection

The UK signed these articles.
It just forgot to obey them.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because there is no ombudsman powerful enough to stop retaliation once it begins.
Because mothers are not safe when the safeguarding powers serve the state, not the child.
Because this wasn’t local failure — it was coordinated across boroughs, hospitals, and agencies.

Let the record show:

  • The evidence was compiled

  • The retaliation was mapped

  • The silence was rejected

  • And SWANK — filed it with Geneva, not Westminster

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe domestic tribunals can resolve systemic abuse they helped enable.
We do not treat international mechanisms as decoration.
We do not file to the UN for effect.
We file because the law here has ceased to protect the disabled from itself.

Let the record show:

The reports were sent.
The truth was indexed.
The retaliation was named.
And SWANK — went global.

This isn’t a shadow.
It is a spotlight in PDF.


No comments: