London’s shuttered Pictorum Gallery has not paid artists or workers, they say

Multiple artists and staff who worked with London’s Pictorum Gallery have said they have not been paid or received unsold works from the now-shuttered gallery.

Interviews conducted by Urgent Matter with artists and gallery head Matthew Navin revealed competing narratives about unpaid sales and unreturned artworks.

Brittany Fanning, a Los Angeles-based painter, told Urgent Matter she participated in a group show with the gallery in 2023, which Navin confirmed. She said a collector wanted one of her paintings from the show and another from her studio, so she shipped both to Pictorum, introduced the gallery to the buyer and allowed the gallery to take 50% of the profits.

“Yes, this may be the case. My understanding is that she introduced a collector in relation to two artworks,” Navin said. “However, the day-to-day communications and specific arrangements were handled by another member of the team, and I am therefore not fully familiar with the particulars of those exchanges.”

Fanning said she has still not received her 50% cut from the sales of the paintings, titled Blue Supper and Red Supper, nearly three years later. Navin confirmed that the proceeds from the sale would be split equally and said that “operational pressures” affected the gallery’s ability to pay artists who consigned works—not just Fanning.

“Payments have been made to reduce the total amount outstanding,” Navin said. “However, the company was unable to settle the full remaining balance at the time due to internal circumstances that affected our ability to complete payments in full.”

Fanning also said the gallery bought a third painting, Shark Lover, for 25% of the original price under unclear terms and with a promise to pay the remaining balance later. She said it never did and has requested the work be returned.

Navin said the purchase was part of the gallery’s advisory arm. “In these cases, the artist received an agreed upfront payment along with an additional 10% to 20% of the net proceeds once the work was sold,” he said, adding that Fanning agreed to “a tiered structure” and admitting that Shark Lover never sold.

“A second payment was not made because the additional tiered payment would only arise upon a future sale,” he said.

Tito Stanley, an artist based in India, told Urgent Matter he sent three paintings for a March 2024 exhibition—the first time he had shown work internationally—and that Pictorum had stopped responding to him when he sought to have his unsold works returned. His contract listed the paintings Weekend Love, Red Collectors and Warmthless Fire.

“When they did not sell during the consignment period, I requested they be returned,” he said. “Then they stopped replying to my messages. The last reply was June 3, 2025.”

After Urgent Matter began reporting this story, Stanley said Navin contacted him and apologized. He said Navin told him the gallery was under renovation, planned to reopen and would return his works by December.

Navin later told Urgent Matter that the return of Stanley’s paintings is “being honored directly between Tito and myself.” He said he missed two of Stanley’s messages after early June due to “operational disruption and the restructuring of the companies.”

“At no point was there any intention to retain works that did not belong to me or any associated company,” he said. “The artworks have always remained available for shipment or collection.”

Artist Emily Pope said in a comment to an Instagram post by Fanning that she “was also scammed by them.”

“Emily Pope’s works have remained available for collection at all times, first while they were held at the gallery and later while held privately. This was communicated to her on February 21, and no response was received,” Navin said. “She had also agreed in 2024 to extend the consignment period. Her intention to have the works returned changed in 2025.”

Emails obtained by Urgent Matter call into question the truthfulness of Navin's responses.

The emails show that Pope initially sought the return of her paintings upon the completion of her consignment period in May 2024, but Navin sought to extend her consignment contract, not the other way around. Pope expressed interest and made multiple attempts to negotiate the contract extension over the next several weeks without a response.

In early June 2024, a former employee named Sanaa Sachdev apologized to Pope on Navin’s behalf, and the pair negotiated a contract extension. Pope then requested the return of her artwork on January 7 when that extension ended, noting that the gallery had ceased operations. Sachdev responded three days later that she would speak with Navin about arranging the return of the artworks.

Pope sent six follow-up emails to Navin over the coming weeks and finally received a response from the dealer on February 21. In his email, Navin revealed that the works were being stored at his home and would be “ready to ship” at her request. Pope responded with her preferred shipper within ten minutes of his reply.

But she did not receive another response from him in that email chain, despite sending six more messages to Navin through March 17. These emails challenge Navin's claim that no response was received from Pope and that they always remained available to be shipped to her, as well as his characterization that she had changed her mind about a contract extension.

“Artists place a significant amount of trust in the galleries they work with—especially when those galleries are outside their own country, where due diligence has its limits. I spoke with other artists, I reviewed past exhibitions, and for a short window it appeared that people were having positive experiences with this gallery. But that trust has since collapsed,” Pope told Urgent Matter.

“I was told directly that my paintings would be returned, yet months have passed with no action and no honest explanation. Being lied to so plainly is egregious and undermines the basic standards our industry depends on.”

It was not immediately clear precisely how many artists were affected by delayed payments or artwork returns. In comments to Urgent Matter, Navin indicated that the number is “less than a handful.”

“Whilst less than a handful of artist-related matters remain active and are being addressed directly, it is important to note that all other artist matters have already been concluded and resolved in full,” Navin said.

Fanning said she only discovered Friday that the gallery had closed and allegedly moved artwork to an undisclosed location. She shared text messages showing Navin asking her to remove Instagram posts that he said were hindering his efforts “to get everything back on track.”

“I will speak with my co-investors,” Navin told her in texts. “But it is unlikely they will just agree to lose funds. They are not my business partners… As far as they will be concerned, the shark painting was acquired through the advisory, and the ongoing concern with the gallery payment is my issue to deal with.”

Navin confirmed he requested that Fanning take down the posts. “My intention was to create space for a constructive and fair discussion, not to silence her,” he said.

The messages also suggested Pictorum still held Shark Lover and other works. Fanning fears the gallery’s investors will auction them.

“The artwork remains in the possession of its proprietors. I confirmed to Brittany that her request would be reviewed through the proper process and subject to a suitable arrangement being agreed and formally approved,” Navin said.

“This does not alter my intention to settle the remuneration due to her in relation to the previously mentioned artworks.”

Business records show that Navin resigned as chief executive of the gallery in December 2022 and that the company was dissolved in December 2024. When asked why he appears to still oversee operations, he said the filings reflect only one legal entity and not the wider group, and that he continued to provide “strategic oversight” across associated companies.

Companies House records also warned that once dissolved, any property owned by the company would pass to the British government. Navin said that notice applies only to assets legally owned by that specific company—not consigned works.

“Consigned artworks or works owned by third parties are not company assets and would not transfer to the Crown,” he said. “They always remain the property of their respective owners.”

Still, artists may have to prove the works are theirs and navigate a bureaucratic process to retrieve them. The dissolution also complicates efforts by artists who say they are owed payment for sold works.

At least three people who worked for the gallery have not been paid, according to people who spoke with Urgent Matter. Navin addressed the situation involving one particular former staffer, Sanaa Sachdev, which he called “complex.”

“She resigned, and no full and final arrangement was agreed before the company entered liquidation,” Navin said. “Once a company enters formal insolvency, all employment related matters fall exclusively within the liquidators’ authority under the statutory insolvency framework.”

Navin said that the gallery’s final exhibition took place in March 2024. Sachdev resigned in early 2025 after discussions throughout December 2024 and January 2025 regarding the seriousness of Pictorum’s financial position.

He said it would be inappropriate for him to comment further on personnel issues as the liquidation process is ongoing.

When Fanning had shared her story to social media, Sachdev replied with a comment detailing her own experience working with the gallery.

“As someone who worked with Pictorum for three years, I’m truly sorry that you had to go through this. We, too, were kept completely in the dark about how serious the company’s financial situation was,” Sachdev said. “Matthew repeatedly reassured us everything was under control, only for us to find out far too late that it wasn’t.”

Sachdev said she eventually resigned after months of unpaid wages, which she has still not received, revealing that her and other staffers have since sought legal action against the gallery.

“Matthew has failed to respond to us, despite reaching out repeatedly. The situation became even clearer when two of us visited the gallery one day to find the entire inventory cleared out and the lease terminated without any warning,” Sachdev said.

“We genuinely did everything we could to recover works belonging to artists like yourself but were only ever told that the matter was ‘being handled.’ I really hope that you speaking out helps prompt a proper response from Matthew.”

In her comments to Urgent Matter, Fanning did praise the gallery’s staff she had worked with, apart from Navin.

“Women who ran the gallery did incredible work,” she said. “They were attentive, organized, and constantly hosting events to support the shows. Even though it was new, it felt like a genuinely promising place to work with, and I loved many of the artists they were showing.”

And while Navin’s communication with Stanley appeared to end on favorable terms for the artist, his communication with Fanning appeared to end with a confrontational tone.

“You will receive a formal response from me shortly. Following that, any further communication will proceed through a more official channel,” Navin told Fanning. “I had hoped to avoid taking this route, as it only complicates matters unnecessarily, but I cannot allow the continued circulation of information that misrepresents the facts.”

To which Fanning replied, “And I cannot allow a man to keep money from me.”

Update: This article was updated on November 24, 2025, at 8:21 p.m. after receiving additional information as well as comments from Emily Pope.

Stories like this take time, documents and a commitment to public transparency. Please support independent arts journalism by subscribing to Urgent Matter and supporting our work directly.