LONDON (MONITORING REPORT): The Waltham Forest licensing case is now before the UK High Court’s First Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber, raising doubts about the fairness and proportionality of actions taken by the London Borough of Waltham Forest against prominent British-Asian property professional Mr. Asad Chaudhary and his associated companies, according to court papers.
£1.4 Million in Penalties
Asad Chaudhary, alongside ZAS Ventures Limited, Interface Properties Limited, Let’s Move Properties Limited, and Marlborough Homes Limited, is appealing against financial penalties under the Housing Act 2004. At stake is not just £1.4 million in fines but also fundamental questions about how far local councils can stretch housing law enforcement without fairness and proportionality.
Allegations in the Waltham Forest Licensing Case
Mr. Chaudhary does not argue his case on the grounds of racial discrimination. However, many in the property and housing sector see it as one where an Asian landlord is being singled out in a multi-cultural borough with heavy Asian investments.
Licensing Powers Disputed in the Case
The case concerns 33 properties across East London, with 78 separate appeals. Six lead cases will determine the outcome of all appeals. Critics argue that Waltham Forest Council lacked legal delegated powers from parliament to issue Selective Licences and demand fees beyond April 2025. Yet, the authority pressed on, showing abuse of power.
Tenant Relations in the Waltham Forest Licensing Case
Court papers reveal that the council created tension between Chaudhary’s companies, managing agents, and tenants. Officials told tenants their rent was excessive and advised them not to pay for minor or cosmetic disrepairs.
Contradictory Positions on Licensing
The council claims Chaudhary and his companies failed to obtain the correct licences. However, facts show inconsistencies. In some cases, officials served notices on him even though he was not the landlord or owner. In other cases, they argued he was the landlord but served no notices. This contradictory approach undermines enforcement credibility and raises doubts about due process.
Legal Arguments from Appellants
The appellants argue that Chaudhary is not “a person having control or managing” the properties under Section 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004. He is neither the freehold owner nor the contractual landlord. The companies had clear contractual arrangements placing responsibility elsewhere. Both landlords and agents insist they cannot be penalised for failures that were not legally theirs to fix.
Unjust Penalties in the Waltham Forest Licensing Case
Chaudhary and his companies also argue that some properties were vacant when notices were issued. Others had their licensing periods shortened without justification. These facts, they say, make the penalties unjust and legally unsound.
Initially, the penalties exceeded £1.4 million. After a reduction, the council still demanded more than £200,000 for the lead properties. The appellants argue that even the reduced figure is unfair and unlawful.
Broader Concerns on Licensing Schemes
This case highlights wider concerns about how London boroughs administer selective licensing schemes. The Housing Act intended these schemes to protect tenants and ensure responsible property management. But when councils exploit them for revenue, trust between landlords, agents, and authorities collapses.
Unlawful Licensing Demands
Appellants argue that Waltham Forest Council demanded five-year licences costing £700 each, even though the scheme was due to expire in April 2025. This forced landlords to either pay for licences outlasting the legal designation or face penalties.
Applications for new licences were submitted in October 2024. Yet, the council had already issued penalties, showing an opportunistic attempt to trap landlords in contradictions rather than genuine concern for housing standards.
Defence of Professional Reputation
Lawyers describe Chaudhary as a respected property professional with over 40 years of experience in East London. They argue his companies house hundreds of residents and he consistently worked with partners to ensure compliance.
They also say he never sought to avoid licensing responsibilities. Crushing penalties threaten staff livelihoods, tenant stability, and his reputation. The council received five approaches for responses but gave none. Lawyers for Chaudhary declined further comment due to case sensitivities.
