On 12 September 2025, the directors of The Building RTM Company Limited revealed their stance not in a formal announcement, but in their newly updated automatic email response. This auto-reply, which every leaseholder now receives when contacting the board, sets out a communication policy that says more about how accountability is evaded in the UK property sector than perhaps they intended.
This follows just 2 days after they were named in this article.
The RTM directors—Sam Arshi, Gerry Bloom, Chris Bradley, Lucy Clow, and Andrew Pavli—state that their mailbox “may be checked only weekly or less frequently during holiday periods.” Leaseholders are told to raise management issues with Oakley Property (their managing agent) instead, and to expect only minimal replies from the RTM itself. Where multiple questions are raised, the directors suggest they may not reply individually at all, preferring to issue generic update notes via Oakley. Yet Oakley doesn’t reply to emails.
On the surface, this looks like a group of volunteer directors trying to manage expectations. But step back, and a pattern emerges:
1. Delegation without Accountability
The RTM board has the legal duty of landlord functions. Oakley is its agent, not its replacement. Yet the directors’ auto-response pushes leaseholders away from the RTM and back to Oakley, creating a cycle where each party can point the finger at the other. Oakley can say “the board must decide,” while the board says “ask Oakley.” The result: a vacuum of accountability.
2. Inaccessibility as a Shield
By admitting the inbox is only checked weekly—or less—the RTM directors are building in systemic delay. Urgent issues, including health and safety concerns or financial irregularities, are effectively deprioritised. This “slow mailbox” becomes a shield: when problems escalate, directors can plead they simply hadn’t checked their email.
3. Generic Updates Instead of Records
The offer to issue “update notes” through Oakley instead of replying to individuals is telling. Direct replies create paper trails; generic updates diffuse responsibility. Leaseholders with legitimate grievances are neutralised by one-size-fits-all statements that erase nuance and avoid answering uncomfortable questions.
4. Personal Liability Concealed Behind Process
By updating their automatic response with this communication protocol, the named directors are aligning themselves with a system designed to minimise their own exposure. Yet in law, RTM directors carry personal fiduciary duties. If they knowingly operate an unresponsive system that conceals arrears, safety risks, or fraudulent conduct, they remain liable—whether or not Oakley is “the first port of call.”
The Broader Lesson
This automatic reply is not just about The Building. It illustrates a broader technique seen across property management in the UK: manufactured inaccessibility.
- Agents say they take instructions only from directors.
- Directors say they are volunteers, so inquiries must go through agents.
- Both hide behind generic notices, delays, and silence.
The result is a deliberately engineered structure where leaseholders cannot get straight answers, where risks fester unchecked, and where those responsible can always say: “We didn’t know.”
Their new auto reply in full:
From: OCH RTM <ochrtmdirectors@gmail.com>
Subject: Please note that this mailbox may be checked only weekly or less frequently during holiday periods Re: New Article Live on James Esposito
Date: Sep 12 2025, at 6:10 pm
To: info <info@propertycorruption.com>
Thank you for your message to OCH RTM directors. If you are an OCH leaseholder, please note:
– We cannot guarantee that this mailbox will be checked more than weekly and less frequently during holiday periods.
– All OCH management questions should be raised with Charlotte McMahon at Oakley in the first instance: blockmanagement@oakleyproperty.com. Do let the OCH RTM Board know if you experience problems contacting Oakley.
– We aim to answer simple questions around core RTM issues and leaseholder engagement in around a week. This includes background information requests, RTM membership or director role queries, and leaseholder meeting scheduling.
– Response to messages on wider RTM and leaseholder issues may vary according to availability of leads. Update notes to all leaseholders via Oakley may be issued instead of multiple individual replies on the same subject.
—
On behalf of Old College House RTM Directors:
Sam Arshi
Gerry Bloom
Chris Bradley
Lucy Clow
Andrew Pavli
Update 1: 25/9/2025
Directors still pushing freehold sale, while Moorland Estate, Oakley Property and Directors refuse any questions:
- Dear Leaseholders at Old College House,We are writing to follow up the letter on the purchase of the freehold at Old College House that you received several weeks ago. We have suggested that each leaseholder contribute £300 for each flat they own. We have collected around 80 percent of the money needed to commission a survey, which is the essential first step in the processIf you support the idea of purchasing the freehold and have not yet made your contribution. We urge you to do so.As we gave explained in previous letters, it was too difficult to establish a joint, account so Andrew Pavli volunteered to open an account to be used exclusively for this purpose. He is a long-term leaseholder of several flats in the building and a RTM Director since 2022. He will ensure that all funds we contribute are used to support the purchase of the freehold, net of any bank charges.We will ask people who do not help pay the cost of the survey to pay a similar amount, when they buy their share for purchasing the freehold.Please make your payment to the following account as soon as possible entering your flat number(s) in the reference.Name: Mr A. PavliSort Code: 23-05-80Account Number:55245878Best wishes,Gerald Bloom and Andrew Pavli
Update 2: 25/9/2025
Just a few hours after updating this article, this happened.