Racial bias concerns surface in Asian landlord’s housing licence case

A case at the UK High Court’s First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has raised questions over the fairness and proportionality of enforcement measures taken by the London Borough of Waltham Forest against British-Asian property professional Asad Chaudhary and his associated companies, according to court documents.

The proceedings centre on whether the council’s actions met legal and regulatory standards, with Mr. Chaudhary contesting what he describes as disproportionate steps taken against his business interests, according to media reports.

Asad Chaudhary - alongside ZAS Ventures Limited, Interface Properties Limited, Let’s Move Properties Limited, and Marlborough Homes Limited - is appealing against a barrage of financial penalties levied under the Housing Act 2004. At stake is not just £1.4 million in cumulative fines, but also fundamental questions about how far local councils can stretch housing law enforcement without due regard to legality, fairness, and proportionality. 

Asad Chaudhary, according to papers, doesn’t argue his case on the grounds of racial discrimination and prejudice but people linked with the property and housing sector view the case as one where an Asian landlord is being singled out by the council’s bosses in a multi-cultural borough with a huge Asian population with heavy investments in the housing sector. 

The case concerns a total of 33 properties across East London, resulting in 78 separate appeals. Six lead cases –  relating to properties in the local borough – have been chosen to determine the outcome of all the appeals.

Serious concerns surround this case as Waltham Forest Council had no legal delegated powers from parliament to issue Selective Licences and demand fees beyond April 2025 but the authority is pressing on with the case in a display of abuse of power and authority. 

Court papers show that shockingly the Waltham Forest Council created a toxic environment between Chaudhary’s companies, managing agents and the tenants by deliberately misleading the occupying tenants not to pay rent. Evidence shows the council officials told the tenants that rent is excessive and that they should not pay the rent over minor/cosmetic disrepairs.

The council’s central claim is that Mr. Chaudhary and the associated companies failed to obtain the correct property licences. According to court papers, the facts reveal a different, troubling picture: the council appears to have adopted inconsistent, and at times irrational, positions about who was actually responsible for obtaining these licences.

In some cases, notices were served on Mr. Chaudhary personally, despite him not being the landlord or owner of the properties. In others, no notices were served on him at all – even though the council argued he was legally the landlord, yet served no notices on him. Court papers say this is the council’s contradictory stance that undermines the credibility of the enforcement action and raises legitimate concerns about whether due process has been followed.

At the heart of the appellants’ argument is a powerful legal point that Mr. 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, and therefore cannot be held responsible for obtaining the licences. The companies involved had clear contractual arrangements that placed responsibility for licensing elsewhere. Both the landlords and their appointed agents argue they cannot be penalised for alleged failures that, in law, were not theirs to rectify.

Asad Chaudhary and the associated companies argue in the court filings that some properties were vacant at the time the notices were issued and others had their licensing periods arbitrarily shortened by the council without proper justification; and that these facts make the penalties not only unjust but also legally unsound.

Court papers show that initially, the total sum of penalties exceeded £1.4 million but after a “reduction for totality,” the council still proposes a penalty of more than £200,000 for the lead properties alone. The appellants’ argue even the reduced figure is unjust and unfair and against the prevailed laws. 

This case does not exist in isolation. It highlights a much deeper problem in how some London boroughs are administering selective licensing schemes.

The Housing Act envisages these schemes as tools to protect tenants and ensure responsible property management. But when councils exploit them as revenue-generating mechanisms, trust between landlords, agents, and local authorities breaks down.

In Waltham Forest’s case, appellants argue the council insisted on five-year licences costing £700 each, even though the licensing designation was set to expire in April 2025. That demand was unlawful and effectively forced landlords and agents into a no-win situation: either pay for licences that would outlast the legal designation or risk punitive financial penalties.

Applications for new licences were in fact submitted in October 2024, but by then the council had already pressed ahead with issuing penalties. This sequence of events demonstrates not genuine concern for housing standards, but rather an opportunistic attempt to trap landlords in bureaucratic contradictions.