Asking Sir Keir Starmer to investigate Jas Athwal MP following the Information Commissioner's Order
I say
Hello Sir Keir, my name is Andy Walker, I am a supporter of the Investigate Jas Athwal community groups and a Your Party member. Other supporters include members of other political parties. This video is completely my own initiative.
This is the third time I have asked you to investigate Jas Athwal, our group has been to 10 Downing twice, and both times you have refused to investigate Jas Athwal. On the 31st March 2026, the Information Commissioners Office issued five decision notices against Redbridge, with Redbridge being ordered to send me information within 30 days.
In a decision at ICO Decision the Commissioner wrote in paragraph 33 under “legitimate interests”
“The complainant argued that it would appear that Mr Athwal should have been fined by the Council for not having a landlord licence and having sub-standard flats. He noted the Council had fined other landlords for not having the correct property licence. The complainant argued this therefore raised concerns that such actions may not have been taken given Mr Athwal’s profile (as a previous leader of the Council and now MP) and if that were the case then an offence of misconduct in public office may have taken place as Council officials had not taken such steps.” ENDS QUOTE
The Commissioner writes at paragraphs 61 and 62 ENDs
“Disclosure of the information would also allow the public to assess the Council’s statement above that its regulation of Mr Athwal’s properties was the same as it would be for any other individual. In reaching this finding the Commissioner considers there to be some parallels here with the cases he has previously considered which sought the names of local councillors who had received summons for failure to pay council tax.”
So, Sir Kier I ask you to suspend Jas Athwal, and Councillor Rai, the Leader of Redbridge Council and conduct a thorough investigation into whether criminality has taken place.
I wrote to the Council monitoring officer on the 2nd March 2026 seeking an investigation be opened into Jas Athwal's conduct. Redbridge wrote back to me on the 7th April to say, despite the Commissioner’s decision, they will not be investigating Jas Athwal, making me rely upon you to order an investigation. If you decide against an investigation, I, and I hope others, will go to Ilford Police Station on 18th April at midday to ask the police to investigate if a charge of misconduct in public office will be brought .ENDS Video
This is the email dated 7th April from Redbridge refusing to investigate referenced above:
Dear Mr Walker,
I refer to my email dated 2 April 2026 . I am now in a position to respond to the formal complaint you made against Cllr Jas Athwal, received by me on 10 March 2026 as attached.
The Complaint
You allege as follows:
“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:
5.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.
6. 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
The Code
The Code sets out that it is only applicable in circumstances where the Councillor has acted in their role as Councillor and/or whilst undertaking duties on behalf of the Council. It states:
“…This Code of Conduct applies to you when you are acting in your capacity as a Councillor…”
This threshold must be met in order for a Complaint to be progressed.
Conclusion
The Independent Person and I have met and undertaken an initial assessment in line with the Council’s Members’ Complaints’ process. We have taken into account your complaint together with the Code of Conduct. Given that the Councillor was not acting in his role as Councillor and/or undertaking Council business at the pertinent time and with regard to matters relating to his personal ownership of disclosed property, the jurisdictional test has not been met. As such, as this test has not been met, it cannot be investigated as a breach of the Council’s said Code and therefore no further action will be taken by this Council in respect of your complaint.
This matter is now concluded.
I would also like to take the opportunity to also address specific allegations against the Monitoring Officer in your email dated 09 March 2026 (14:02) to various people holding Public
Office.
You state:
‘she has a conflict of interest by being in the employment of Redbridge Labour Party, who I am complaining about.’
These statements are inaccurate and unproven and the Council find such comments about a senior officer intolerable. I understand that you have previously been informed that any concerns about misconduct should be taken to the police to progress.
Yours sincerely,
Agnes Adrien
Chief Legal Officer & Deputy Monitoring Officer
Legal Services
The London Borough of Redbridge
Town Hall, 128-142 High Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DD
Comments
Post a Comment