A prominent British Asian landlord is challenging a £15,600 financial penalty imposed by Waltham Forest Council, arguing the borough’s selective licensing requirements are being applied unlawfully and that he is being unfairly targeted in a personal capacity.
Asad Chaudhary, director of several property firms including Interface Properties Limited and ZAS Ventures Limited, has lodged an appeal at the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) against the Council’s decision. The appeal relates to allegations that multiple properties under his companies’ control were rented out without the required selective licences under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004.
The Council is demanding £15,600 from ZAS Ventures for a tenancy dated 27 December 2023. It is also seeking a further £39,000 from Interface Properties and £19,500 from Lets Move Properties for alleged breaches involving two additional properties.
Mr Chaudhary, who manages a large rental portfolio across East London, argues that Waltham Forest’s requirement to pay for a full five-year licence is invalid—particularly where the statutory designation for licensing expires before the five-year period concludes.
According to the Housing Act 2004, councils may designate areas for selective licensing to address local housing issues. Waltham Forest designated 18 out of its 20 wards for licensing in May 2020, a scheme due to expire on 30 April 2025. Landlords are required to pay a £700 licence fee per property, regardless of how long remains on the designation.
Mr Chaudhary’s legal team argues this policy is not only unreasonable but unlawful under section 84(2) of the Act, which they say prohibits licences from extending beyond the designation’s expiry. “The Council cannot demand a licence fee for a term it has no power to enforce,” said Iain Colville KC, counsel for Mr Chaudhary. “To do so undermines the statutory time limits Parliament expressly imposed.”
The Council is also being accused of improperly holding Mr Chaudhary personally liable, despite the properties being owned and managed by limited companies. According to section 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004, only those in control or management of a property can be penalised for non-licensing. Mr Chaudhary asserts that he acted solely in his capacity as company director, and thus the corporate entities should be held liable—not him as an individual.
“This attempt to pierce the corporate veil is legally unsound,” said Colville KC.
The case has raised wider concerns in legal circles over potential misuse of licensing powers by local authorities. One housing law expert stated: “The appeal underscores that licensing regimes must comply not only with the letter of the law but also its spirit—designed to protect tenants, not punish landlords acting in good faith.”
Mr Chaudhary is also pursuing legal action against the Council through a judicial review. On 15 March 2024, he filed a claim on behalf of Interface Properties and ZAS Ventures, challenging the legality of being forced to pay for full five-year licences when the designation itself expires in April 2025.
While the High Court ultimately refused permission for the judicial review in September 2024, the Council had earlier agreed, on 5 June 2024, to suspend enforcement action pending the resolution of the matter. In line with that agreement, Interface Properties submitted all required licence applications—including for the Leytonstone flat in question—on 1 October 2024.
Despite this, the Council issued a Final Notice of financial penalty on 23 April 2025. Mr Chaudhary’s legal team says this move breached the earlier agreement and further undermines the legitimacy of the Council’s actions.
The penalties have also been criticised as excessive. Ministry of Housing guidelines from 2018 advise that financial penalties should be proportionate, evidence-based, and reserved for serious cases. Yet the Council categorised Chaudhary’s case as “Band 4 – Serious”, despite no evidence of harm or intent to avoid compliance.
Court filings show Mr Chaudhary never refused to apply for licences but objected to paying inflated fees for periods extending beyond the legal timeframe. Once it was agreed a submission could be made, he complied immediately.
“The penalty is not only excessive but procedurally flawed,” added the legal expert. “He had a reasonable excuse, was not the landlord in his personal capacity, and acted promptly when an application path was clarified.”
If upheld, the penalties could set a worrying precedent—allowing councils to hold directors personally liable for corporate breaches, and to demand fees for services beyond their statutory remit.
Waltham Forest Council declined to comment on the ongoing case. Its press office initially promised a response but failed to provide answers despite multiple reminders over a one-month period.
The First-tier Tribunal is now tasked with deciding whether the Council’s enforcement actions and personal penalties against Mr Chaudhary were lawful and proportionate.