Update on the campaign to investigate Jas Athwal
I sent the email below to Redbridge Councillors yesterday: -
Dear Councillors
I wrote to you about a proposed protest on the 5th March outside Redbridge Town Hall. Before hand I was advised by a Redbridge officer to write to Ms Sandhu. Advice that I accepted and wrote the email copied below to Ms Sandhu on the 2nd March. The protest on the 5th March was cancelled. I do not any confidence in Ms Sandhu's judgement because she has a conflict of interest by being in the employment of Redbridge Labour Party, who I am complaining about. After consulting with others, there will be a photoshoot on Saturday18th April at Midday outside Ilford Police Station to hand in a letter. The first draft of the letter is as follows:
Subject: Formal Request for Investigation into Misconduct in Public Office – Jas Athwal MP and Redbridge Council Officers
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing on behalf of the Investigate Jas Athwal to formally request an investigation into Jas Athwal MP and senior officers at Redbridge Council regarding potential misconduct in public office.
This request follows multiple unanswered or unsatisfactory enquiries directed to Jas Athwal MP and Redbridge Council regarding the failure to issue penalties for Mr Athwal’s unlicensed rental properties and substandard flats.
Our concerns are based on the following grounds:
Failure to Enforce Licensing Regulations: Mr Athwal has publicly admitted that sub-standard properties he owns were rented out without the required selective licences. Redbridge Council’s own internal guidance and the judicial precedent set in Redbridge v Ekweozoh suggest that, given these admissions, enforcement action should have been taken by now.
Suspicion of Conspiracy/Collusion: The prolonged failure to fine Mr Athwal, despite clear evidence of breaches, leads to a reasonable suspicion that senior Redbridge Council officers may be colluding with Mr Athwal to prevent, hinder, or obstruct necessary regulatory action.
Misconduct in Public Office Thresholds: Should it be found that public officers willfully neglected their duty to enforce council policy—or willfully misconducted themselves to protect a former leader (Mr Athwal)—the legal thresholds for Misconduct in Public Office appear to have been met.
Threshold: A public officer acting as such willfully neglects to perform their duty and/or willfully misconducts themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.
Urgency of the Matter
Potential evidence regarding this matter is currently the subject of a Freedom of Information request pending a decision notice at the Information Commissioner’s Office. However, waiting for this process is insufficient. Due to the ongoing nature of the potential breaches and the risk of further, ongoing criminality, we urge the police to act immediately.
Proposed First Step
We request that the police, as a preliminary stage, formally correspond with Redbridge Council to demand the reasons for the delay in fining Mr Athwal. A decision on a full criminal investigation should follow based on the legitimacy of their reply.
ENDs Draft
Should you wish to sign please let me know.
Regards
Andy Walker – Email to Ms Sandhu
Sent: Monday, March 2nd 2026, 11:38
Subject: Belated request for a standards investigation into Jas Athwal
Dear Ms Sandhu
On reflection, I have decided to complete members code of conduct complaint form.
The box 4 details are as follows.
Introduction
There is a reasonable suspicion of misconduct in public office by Jas Athwal MP and officers. This is because Mr Athwal has not been fined for his unlicensed slum flats, despite the Council's own guidance and court guidance suggesting he should have been. A transparent, albeit belated standards investigation needs to be carried out in the interests of public confidence in the Council's treatment of Mr Athwal.
Instead of a transparent investigation of Mr Athwal's conduct, Redbridge is refusing to publish requested by me via freedom of information. No reasons have been given for why Mr Athwal has not been fined for his misconduct, which undermines the rule of law. The numbered paragraphs, including a reference to an email by Ms Sandhu dated 6th February, below provide the details of my argument:
1. The BBC Joe Pike article of 30 August 2024 titled 'Ants are everywhere': Labour MP's tenants reveal condition of flats has the following quotes:
Mr Athwal said he was "shocked" and "profoundly sorry" to hear of residents' issues, which he had not been aware of due to the properties being managed by an agency, and promised repairs and maintenance will be completed "swiftly".
AND
"My properties are managed by an agency, selected for their quick response times and excellent customer service.”
HOWEVER
“Mr Athwal has now also admitted his flats do not have the correct property licences required under a scheme he introduced as Redbridge Council leader. He had earlier claimed to the BBC that he had complied with the rules.”
On the face of it, this appears dishonest conduct requiring further investigation.
2. The same article says "My properties are managed by an agency, selected for their quick response times and excellent customer service. This is evidenced by the long tenure of the tenants – over 87 years across 15 properties.”
The agency has never been identified by Mr Athwal. Raymond Williams was identified on Landlord Zone website as his agent, however Raymond Williams denied being Mr Athwal's agent in a social media post.
Raymond Williams was not listed as Mr Athwal's agent on the Council Landlord register. The Joe Pike article says:
“Most of the people I spoke to said Mr Athwal and his property manager (my emphasis) were slow to respond to complaints or were completely unresponsive.”
Although the Council landlord website is down at time of writing, a previous entry available at https://jasathwalmustbeinvestigated.blogspot.com/2025/05/why-jas-athwal-refusal-to-name-his.html appears to show Mr Athwal managing the properties with another family member. This suggests Jas Athwal may have been managing the properties in question with family members.
3. I rely on parts 5 and 6 of the Redbridge Councillor code of conduct especially the parts that I have highlighted below, to show why Mr Athwal is in breech of the code:
Disrepute As a Councillor: 5.1 I do not bring my role or local authority into disrepute. As a Councillor, you are trusted to make decisions on behalf of your community and your actions and behaviour are subject to greater scrutiny than that of ordinary members of the public. You should be aware that your actions might have an adverse impact on you, other Councillors and/or your local authority and may lower the public’s confidence in your or your local authority’s ability to discharge your/its functions. For example, behaviour that is considered dishonest and/or deceitful can bring your local authority into disrepute.
Use of position As a Councillor: 6.1 I do not use, or attempt to use, my position improperly to the advantage or disadvantage of myself or anyone else. Your position as a Councillor of the local authority provides you with certain opportunities, responsibilities, and privileges, and you make choices all the time that will impact others. However, you should not take advantage of these opportunities to further your own or others’ private interests or to disadvantage anyone unfairly.
The conduct of Jas Athwal has clearly brought the reputation of the Council into disrepute. It is Mr Athwal's personal business, but it is regulated by the Council. Therefore, for him to fail to follow his own Council's rules breaches the Nolan Code. I quote from Guidance on Local Government Association Model Councillor Code of Conduct.
“In what circumstances might I give the impression to a reasonable member of the public that I was engaged on local authority business?
When you use or attempt to use your position as a councillor to seek to gain an advantage for yourself or someone close to you or to disadvantage someone this is an attempt to misuse your position and therefore falls within the scope of the Code of Conduct.”
These parts of the Code of Conduct and the Government Guidance suggest that Mr Athwal may have breeched the Code by using his influence as a Councillor to work with Council officers to prevent a fine.
4. – A recent email from Ms Sandhu, the Redbridge Monitoring Officer, dated 6th February 2026 to another Redbridge resident says:
“In terms of your reference to Mr Athwal, we confirm he was treated just like any other landlord, as is expected. In all cases we carry out a thorough investigation and in respect of which there can be four outcomes: no action required; or the landlord is expected to comply and rectify any faults or other non-compliance; or at times the matter may be considered for a Fixed Penalty Notice; or referred to Court for prosecution or otherwise to the First Tier Tribunal. Only if the individual concerned is prosecuted and convicted will some of the information become a matter of public record.”
This was news to me as requests about Mr Athwal via freedom of information requests were given this response per the below:
London Borough of Redbridge, Redbridge Borough Council 5 December 2025
WhatDoTheyKnow has identified Redbridge Borough Council may have refused all or part of your request under Section 40. Get help to challenge it.
Information request
Our reference: 24558362
Your reference: [FOI #1189054 email]
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Andy Walker
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to the ICO's instruction within their Decision Notice issued 6th
November 2025 for us to reconsider your request, we have concluded that
the information you have requested is exempt under Section 40(2) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information concerned constitutes
personal data of a third party(or parties) and is, as such, exempt from
disclosure. This application is an absolute exemption and therefore there
is no requirement to conduct a Public Interest Test in this regard.
Should you be unsatisfied with this response, you will note the ICO
invites you to engage with them without the requirement for the local
authority to conduct an internal review.
Yours faithfully
Tim Rodgers
Information Governance and Compliance Lead
London Borough of Redbridge
So residents know now that a “thorough investigation” into Jas Athwal has taken place, but no information will be published unless a prosecution takes place and is successful:
“Only if the individual concerned is prosecuted and convicted will some of the information become a matter of public record.”
Prosecutions may take years, due to lengthy court delays. It is unacceptable that the public may not know whether a case is being prepared against Mr Athwal, when the conditions of the properties concerned were reported to have faults damaging to health. I quote again from the Joe Pike article:
“When I visited the properties, which are above an empty shop in Ilford, the communal areas were dirty and the lights did not work. Fire alarms were hanging loose from the ceiling, and a washing machine had been dumped next to a set of stairs.”
5. - In conclusion, we now know that Mr Athwal is or has/been subject to one of the four outcomes listed above and again below for ease of reference:
“no action required; or the landlord is expected to comply and rectify any faults or other non-compliance; or at times the matter may be considered for a Fixed Penalty Notice; or referred to Court for prosecution or otherwise to the First Tier Tribunal. Only if the individual concerned is prosecuted and convicted will some of the information become a matter of public record.”
Public confidence in the rule of law means that the landlord investigation into Jas Athwal must be published along with a belated standards investigation.
6. The council own guidelines ( https://jasathwalmustbeinvestigated.blogspot.com/2024/11/why-redbridge-should-have-fined-jas.html ) and the thresholds given in the court case Redbridge v Ekweozoh ( https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/19502119.landlord-wins-court-battle-redbridge-council-fine/ ) suggest Mr Athwal should have been fined so this continual secrecy undermines the authority of Redbridge Council. ENDS insert for box 4
Regards
Andy Walker
Comments
Post a Comment