The final version of our six-month case study update below makes one thing clear: the cover-up is not containing the situation — it is making it far worse.
Case Study Update
This article documents a pattern of prolonged silence, procedural avoidance, and non-escalation by multiple large organisations in response to allegations which include attempted murder and resident tracking connected to a particular residential building. The issue is not one isolated failure, but a repeated institutional response across finance, property management, law enforcement, and the housing market. Also, as can be seen below, even the sending out of a first draft of this article, appeared to instigate a new cover up.
Entities impacted in the case study:
Oakley Property
Service charges have not been paid for 14 months. Oakley issued a Stage One letter in July 2025 and did not follow it up. A second Stage One letter was sent in December 2025, but it included what appeared to be obvious faking of previous service charge records. This resulted in police reports being filed. Oakley then went silent again
Nationwide — Loan
14/1/2026 – Nationwide passed a loan to Moorgroup and later admitted that it had not informed them of the situation at all. Following this, both Moorgroup and Nationwide went silent for several months. Nationwide eventually sent a letter stating that it was not escalating the matter and that it was only required to issue reminders once every six months.
16/1/2026 Update, Nationwide moved management to Zinc Credit Management (interesting this event occurred after a draft version of this article was sent out).
Nationwide — Virgin Money Debt
When asked to take the matter to court so it could be addressed formally, Virgin money refused. Instead, they stated that the responsibility was on the debt holder to take them to court.
NatWest — Mortgage
14/1/2026 – NatWest and their solicitor, TLT, attempted multiple aggressive procedural tactics and tactics that appear to venture into perverting the course of justice, all of which failed. The first repossession hearing took place on 3 November 2025. Since then, the court has not booked a second hearing. As of 14 January 2026, the court is ignoring all emails regarding the matter.
15/1/2026 – Natwest annouces that Keiran Foad the Chief Risk Officer at the centre of many of the cover up allegations has left the bank. Our article on next steps for this (interesting this event occurred a day after a draft version of this article of a 6 month update of the case was sent out).
16/1/2026 Update — PCOL recorded that a telephone message was sent, but did not specify the recipient. If this message was intended for the editor, it continues a pattern of ignoring accommodation requests. No message was left/received. PCOL has been contacted to request clarification and confirmation. (interesting this event occurred after a draft version of this article was sent out).
Police
The police have stated that the matter is civil. They have refused to provide an email address or access to an evidence portal. They have also refused to clarify which crime report they are referring to when communicating about the issue.
Estate Agents (Aston Vaughan, Maslen, Avard, Winkworth, Oakley, Others)
Despite the unresolved allegations, outstanding disputes, and institutional silence, estate agents continue to attempt to sell properties within the building.
Everest Miles Contractors (Named in multiple serious allegations)
Still operating within the building in high-trust roles affecting many residents, while refusing to respond to emails, comply with Subject Access Requests, or disclose details of their professional indemnity insurance.
Is this the normal way Ian Everest, director of Everest Miles Contractors, conducts business? Their website states that insurance details will be provided on request, yet when questions arise about malpractice, silence appears to be the preferred response.
They do not provide a list of their main clients online, but it would be reasonable to explore whether these worrying patterns extend beyond this situation.
Many Other Entities
Other details available on request.
Conclusion
Across finance, property management, policing, and real estate, the same pattern repeats: silence, non-escalation, procedural deflection, and refusal to engage substantively. Taken together, these actions prevent scrutiny, delay resolution, and leave serious allegations effectively unexamined.
This is not a failure of one organisation, but a systemic response.
We can only assume that where these practices are evident in one case, they are likely being applied more broadly across these companies’ portfolios. Once institutions have been clearly informed of serious issues — including prolonged silence, failures in information transfer, and unmanaged risk — any decision to delay resolution is no longer neutral. It actively compounds the problem. Legal exposure increases as knowledge is established, reputational damage deepens as patterns persist, and regulatory consequences escalate the longer corrective action is avoided. What might appear to be short-term containment instead multiplies long-term liability.
This case study sits at the heart of propertycorruption.com as a living, continuously updated record of how corruption, risk suppression, and institutional silence operate in practice. It is not presented as a historical dispute but as an active evidential thread, documenting what happens when regulated entities are informed of serious issues and choose delay over resolution. As the record grows, it functions both as a case study and as a reference point for identifying the same patterns across other organisations, portfolios, and sectors.
Update: In the absence of any requested amendments from the parties named above, the text is taken to be accepted as written.
Update 2 – 17/1/2026: With Everest trying to cultivate legitimacy, while their conduct behind the scenes aligns more closely with obstruction, intimidation, or conflict escalation. If this is not an accurate reading, then the long-term pattern of silence, deflection, and non-engagement still demands a credible explanation. Imagine Everest hearing about one of the serious incidents where this later happened:
- First, Oakley claimed the key CCTV camera covering the area of one attack had been “damaged in an accident.”
- Then, after pressure, they contradicted themselves, stating all footage had in fact been retained.
- Finally, they refused to release the footage unless requested by police — who themselves are now refusing to provide incident logs.
…and Everest (or Oakley) asked no questions about what had occurred, showing no apparent interest in allegations that their people may have been involved in planning or carrying out an attack on a resident? Is this normal behaviour — particularly given the absence of any visible concern about the risk of further incidents? The van that left the scene after this incident:
This may explain Everest’s refusal to provide their indemnity insurance details — it is unlikely such a policy would cover conduct of this kind. In any case, a responsible professional indemnity policy would surely expect, at a minimum, a basic written follow-up to a serious report. The complete absence of even a single acknowledgement or inquiry suggests not only poor governance, but behaviour that would likely fall outside what any insurer would be prepared to underwrite. Also, it raises the question – how many times has this happened before or since?
Update 3 : 20/1/2026
One of the most disturbing aspects of this case — and of many cases reported to PropertyCorruption.com — is how often people from the emergency services and building trades appear willing to assist in enforcing property-related harm or intimidation.
From our side, hearing these stories is harrowing: like the elderly woman who reportedly took her own life in a council flat after four years of trying to obtain justice. Or accounts of fire services allegedly abandoning door inspection reports for years to hide wrongdoing, while personnel simultaneously ran lucrative private building side businesses. In such cases, it is hard not to ask whether the money was simply too tempting.
For us, this ultimately comes down to philosophy. We believe it is better to try to change a broken system — even at risk — than to drift along with it. Speaking out matters not just for today, but because it can have a ripple effect that may improve the lives of millions in the future.
If you have information to share, we are always here to listen. We treat all communications in confidence: info@propertycorruption.com