A legal battle unfolding at the UK High Court’s First Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber, has cast doubts over the fairness and proportionality of actions taken by the London Borough of Waltham Forest against prominent British-Asian property professional Asad Chaudhary and his associated companies, according to court papers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The council was approached five times to respond to questions but no answers were give, despite several reminders. Lawyers for Asad Chaudhary said they will not comment on the case due to the sensitives involved.
