Asking Ms Sandhu, the Redbridge Monitoring Officer to open a Standards Investigation into Jas Athwal MP following ICO decision notice
The email below was sent on 2nd April, the Council replied to say I would get an answer on 7th April.
Dear Ms Sandhu
You wrote to me on the 20th February 2026 suggesting I request a standards investigation into Jas Athwal MP. I emailed you on the 2nd March giving my grounds for why misconduct in public office may have taken place as the reason for starting a standards investigation.
On 31st March the ICO ordered Redbridge to disclose documents which may prove misconduct in public office. Therefore, I suggest you announce that you have commenced a standards investigation into Jas Athwal later today.
If you continue to ignore my request I expect to draw it to the attention of the police on Saturday 18th April.
Regards
Andy Walker – Below: your email of 20th February and my request for a belated standards investigation
Dear Mr Walker,
Thank you for your email and my apologies for a short delay in responding.
As you will be aware, having served as a local councillor in Redbridge, s.28 of the Localism Act 2011 provides for the requirement for an authority to adopt a Code of Conduct for Councillors. The Act also requires that the authority “…must have in place –
arrangements under which any allegations can be investigated, and
arrangements under which decisions on allegations can be made…”
In accordance with the aforesaid provisions this Council’s adopted procedure can be found in the following links:
Code of conduct complaint form:
https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/media/e0qbioo4/members-code-of-conduct-complaint-form.pdf
Guidance for code of conduct complaints:
I believe you will find the above helpful.
In terms of your allegations to “misconduct in public office” it is your prerogative to report any concerns that you may have directly to the Police.
Yours sincerely,
Pervinder Sandhu (pronouns she/her)
Director of Assurance and Monitoring Officer
The London Borough of Redbridge
Town Hall, 128-142 High Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DD.
EXTRACT FROM MY STANDARDS INVESTIGATION REQUEST OF 2.3.26 TO YOU
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
------ Original Message ------
From: andy.walker@talk21.com
To: Pervinder.Sandhu@redbridge.gov.uk Cc: jas.athwal.mp@parliament.uk; Claire.Hamilton@redbridge.gov.uk
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 faithfullyTim Rodgers
Information Governance and Compliance Lead
London Borough of RedbridgeSo 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