Inspection dates and other documents released by Redbridge regarding concerns over misconduct in public office: More information requests made


The documents released by Redbridge on 30th April are not sufficient evidence of misconduct in public office, so I have put in further requests.

The inspection dates below show multiple visits to Jas Athwal's properties implying serious defects and beg the question as to why he was not fined.

It appears Jas Athwal did not hold licences for most, if  not all of his properties for months, and it seems he only licensed them because of the Joe Pike story. There also is a concern that Jas Athwal's licensing correspondence show new applications being made rather than renewals in most cases. 

Redbridge had no correspondence with Jas Athwal's agent, raising the question of whether he invented an agent to avoid blame due to him and his family managing the flats.

I have written to Redbridge asking that they commence a belated code of conduct enquiry into Jas Athwal because they have accepted the ICO orders which say Jas Athwal requires more scrutiny than a private landlord.

Redbridge appears to have broken the ICO orders by not supplying all the information required by the orders. I have asked the ICO to intervene on this point. 


First of Five Decisions
I got this from Redbridge on 30th April following an ICO order. It is a list of inspections of Jas Athwal's properties following the Joe Pike BBC story, I will be making further freedom of information requests.
The ICO summary is:
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking the dates which it had inspected the rental properties owned by the (then) Councillor Athwal. The Council withheld the requested information on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the dates the properties were inspected are not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) but the addresses of the properties are exempt from on the basis of section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) of FOIA.

The decision notice is at https://ico.org.uk/media2/4nuiysae/ic-464092-n3p0.pdf





Second of Five Decisions 
The ICO summary for next one is below
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking information the number of notices issued to selective licence landlords during a particular period, the names of the landlords and contents of the notices. The Council provided the complainant with the number of notices issued but withheld the remaining information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that only some of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. 

Full decision at https://ico.org.uk/media2/cnkhgu3d/ic-464099-p6j1.pdf 


This one is still outstanding. Redbridge sent me a secure link, I can't understand why because the contents are now public. I couldn't open the link and Redbridge refused to send a pdf. I am awaiting a paper copy: Redbridge email below:
Dear Andy Walker 

I write further to your request for information relating to the below. 

1) How many notices were issued to selective licence landlords for the period 1st July 2024 to 1st December 2024 including their dates of issue. 
107 notices were issued to 29 landlords/agents relating to 47 properties. 

2) The names of the landlords or their managing agents. 
We have withheld this information in line with the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice. 

3) The contents of the notice. The grounds for issuing notices are set out in the Redbridge "Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy" 2023. 
I have shared a secure link to the folder containing the information. It has not been attached due to the size of the files. In line with the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice, we have applied redactions under s.40 of the Freedom of Information Act. 

Third of Five Decisions
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking emails from senior staff about whether an investigation into (then) Councillor Athwal should be commenced in respect of him not holding a landlord licence. The Council withheld the information on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the information in scope is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA, the exception being a spreadsheet described in the decision notice below which the Commissioner accepts is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption. The Commissioner has concluded that the addresses of the rental properties are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) of FOIA.

Full decision at: https://ico.org.uk/media2/mkmb3c0d/ic-464096-g8f2.pdf

Redbridge replied to say 

"Dear Andy Walker 

I write further to your request for information relating to emails from senior staff about whether an investigation into Mr Athwal should be commenced.

I confirm we do not hold information in scope of your request. 

Kind regards 

Information Governance Team 
London Borough of Redbridge"

I am challenging this because Cllr Canal is on record stating he asked for a standards investigation. 

Fourth of Five Decisions 

The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking a list of addresses of rental properties owned by the (then) Councillor Athwal and correspondence between him and the Council about the property licences for such properties. The Council withheld the addresses on the basis of section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) and the correspondence on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the addresses of the properties are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. The correspondence is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2).

https://ico.org.uk/media2/p2fdit13/ic-464090-d9s6.pdf is the full decision above.

The 126 pages release are at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rfL8i8ftx7rUldeFZZoOFPmKLKCdqDFM/view?usp=drive_link



The extract from the above on 3rd September shows only one renewal application and the rest appear new at 1st September 2024. This begs the question: did Mr Athwal have rental properties that were unlicenced for years?

The first line suggests Mr Athwal started an application in April 24, but no document is provided from April 2024. This suggests a document has been withheld.

 

On the licences, Mr Athwal said: "It was my understanding all the licences for my properties were up to date, but I have recently seen an email which shared that licences are due to expire. I am in the process of renewing all licences."

 

I have asked the ICO to investigate if a breach has taken place.

 


Fifth of Five Decisions 
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking correspondence between correspondence between it and the (then) Councillor Athwal's managing agents about his rental properties. The Council withheld this information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the correspondence is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) although the addresses of the properties are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) of FOIA.

Decision at 

https://ico.org.uk/media2/pvrpahqb/ic-464093-x9d7.pdf

Redbridge replied to say 

"Dear Andy Walker 

I write further to your request for information relating to correspondence between Mr Athwal’s managing agents and Redbridge Council from 1st January 2024 to 10th October 2024. 
I confirm that we do not hold information in scope of your request. 

Kind regards 

Information Governance Team 
London Borough of Redbridge"

This raises the question of whether Jas Athwal made up an agent to avoid sanction from the Labour party, a concern that should be resolved as soon as possible. Ms Reeves MP named her agent when she had a licensing issue, Jas Athwal should do the same. 










 





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jas Athwal MP and the Rogue Landlord Allegations: A Year On, Still No Transparency

It’s now been almost a year since Jas Athwal MP was accused of being a rogue landlord following a BBC investigation in August 2024. The investigation revealed serious issues in several properties linked to Athwal, including unlicensed rentals, ant infestations, and dangerous black mold. Since the report, Athwal has publicly shifted blame onto his property agent—an individual he still refuses to name. As concerned residents and members of the public, we have every right to ask: Has Jas Athwal been fined? Was he investigated at all? Why the continued silence? A Trail of Freedom of Information Requests Since the initial report, several Freedom of Information (FOI) requests have been submitted to Redbridge Council in an effort to determine whether Athwal has been held accountable. Unfortunately, these requests have revealed more about the opacity of the system than about the case itself. The first FOI response claimed that the council held no paper or electronic records indicating whether ...
Read more

ICO Decision published: Redbridge Labour must disclose correspondence immediately or face referral to police on 18th April

Image
The ICO have published decision notices for five requests. This is the first, the good news is that Redbridge have been ordered to disclose correspondence as to whether Jas Athwal should have been fined for his unlicenced slum flats. The decision is at the bar code. The Council can appeal, a process that can take years. If Redbridge won't supply the information requested, I will be canvassing for a referral to the police at midday on 18th April. It is unacceptable that the suspicion of criminal activity could fester for years.   First page below;  
Read more

David Lammy MP, Angela Rayner MP, Rachel Reeves MP and Cllr Michael Situ were all investigated: Why not Jas Athwal MP?

 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...
Read more