Jas Athwal must be investigated

 Ms Hamilton, the Redbridge Chief Executive wrote back to me today to say: I wrote back as follows: I will write further when I have more news.

 I sent the email below earlier today, I send an update in due course:  "Dear Ms Hamilton, Ms Sandhu and Cllr Rai.  I wrote to Ms Hamilton and Cllr Rai on the 20 th November 2025. A holding reply was sent to me stating Ms Sandhu would reply to me. However, she has not and the two questions in my email of 20 th November remain unanswered: the questions are listed below. "a – Has an investigation has taken place into Jas Athwal by the monitoring officer about the Joe Pike story? Especially since Mr Athwal relied upon a managing agent for not having a licence and the poor state of his properties. The Redbridge landlord register suggests he did not have an agent and so leads to the concern that he or his family managed the properties.    b- Did your landlord licensing department investigate Jas Athwal's properties for the reasons given above and if so what was their conclusions?"  Unless I receive a substantive reply to my questions by close of business on 3r...

 I sent this to   Claire Hamilton and Councillor Rai yesterday. I will write more after the 27th November. Dear Claire Hamilton and Councillor Rai   Recent developments suggest Redbridge should carry out and publish the outcome of any investigation into whether Jas Athwal MP should have been fined for not having a landlord licence and his sub-standard flats. I rely on breaches of the Nolan code which led to investigations into the conduct of David Lammy MP, Angela Rayner MP, Rachel Reeves MP and Cllr Michael Situ.     Cllr Situ's lack of a licence has led to a report in the Evening Standard which stated - “ The matter has also been referred to the council’s Monitoring Officer for investigation.” So far Redbridge is refusing to say if an investigation into Mr Athwal has taken place following the Joe Pike BBC story last year.  This is unacceptable; there should have two investigations, one by the monitoring officer and another by your landlord enforcemen...

 The Information Commissioners Office have issued their decision notice today which is available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TDwgkx52vvOKJWf2P2cZcSLnY9B57fFf/view?usp=sharing "The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are not vexatious and therefore the Council cannot rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse these requests." The requests seek to discover whether misconduct in public office has taken place by Jas Athwal. Unfortunately, the ICO is yet to make a judgment on the substance of my requests. The vexatious point had to be dealt with as a preliminary issue.    I argue this is a significant judgment because, if you agree that Labour are trying to bully me using unfair methods such as calling me vexatious, then it begs the question of what they doing behind the scenes in relation to their staff and residents. The final judgment on this could take years. However, if we campaign strongly enough on this we might be able to get a result sooner.   ...

 On 11th October I wrote the below: On the 27th October I got a holding reply: I say at the video: On 11 th October I wrote to Ms Sandu, the Redbridge Monitoring Officer saying Cllr Rai was bringing Redbridge Council into disrepute and so breaching the Councillors code of conduct by refusing to instruct his freedom of information department to release the name of Jas Athwal's agent when the BBC story broke last year on his unlicensed, substandard flats. Every other licenced landlord has to name their managing agent so why should Jas Athwal be any different? On the 27 th October the council sent me an email on my blog saying the monitoring officer would be in touch with me later in the week. The monitoring officer has not been in touch. Last week saw Rachel Reeves' unlicensed rental house make the news. Ms Reeves, like Jas Athwal, blamed her agent, however, unlike Jas Athwal, she named her agent who provided a supportive statement. Every day the monitoring officer delays ...

This is the summary below: I am appealing to seek the original text from Redbridge saying I cannot get a fair trial without knowing exactly what Redbridge are saying. I am relying on this guidance given to public authorities taken from ICO website. "Can we introduce a new reason for refusing a request at this stage? It is not good practice to introduce new reasons for refusing a request at this late stage (see When can I refuse a request? ) and you should avoid doing so. However, if you do decide you need to rely on a new exemption, then we will consider your arguments in the normal way. You will need to inform us and the requester about your new arguments straight away." ENDS my emphasis