Your Slough Times scored another victory for law-abiding residents in the town's forgotten, ignored and run-down north-west corner.
Our COCO (Council Corruption) investigators discovered a rogue landlord illegally letting a former council house and charging sleepers in a garden extension up to £50 per night.
Tenants in the house and neighbours fear victimisation and physical violence if they talk to the Slough Times. One was hysterical her family might be harmed.
COCO was established because Slough Council officials and Slough Councillors effectively ignore the continuing endemic fraud and corruption in, and affecting, the council. Some appear to protect fraudsters. We think some take bribes but we have no proof of their criminal activity – only a suspicion supported by repeated allegations made by other staff and other councillors.
When COCO expressed concerns to Slough Council, the local authority was too lazy or too incompetent to properly investigate both the public's concerns and the Slough Times COCO concerns. There are suspicions an attempt by former council director Roger Parkin to close-down the Slough Times COCO investigation was to protect a council employee said to be directly linked to the rogue landlord's wife.
Residents say the former council house, 96 Greenside, SL1
1ST, on the east side of Chatsfield,
was never lived in by the council's
The council also failed to investigate complaints that:-
were involved in a Right-to-Buy tenancy fraud.
Slough Council has always been shrouded in fraud and corruption.
The Slough Times first encountered housing fraud in 2002 when Slough
council houses were
sold to aspirant tenants for £3,000 each.
£1,500 up-front and £1,500 after moving in.
Thames Valley Police refused to investigate the complaint despite Slough Times having two witnesses – both council staff.
Such frauds are always, it seems to the Slough Times, covered-up by senior council officials anxious to avoid bad publicity. Observing the law appears not to apply to them.
The Slough Times put a note through the letterbox of 96 Greenside. The note stated:-
The Slough Times would like to speak with you concerning your
hotel / guest house business.
Please telephone us on 01753-511911 or email your telephone
number to us. We will call you for a chat.
We look forward to hearing from you. It is important we know your
side of the story including how you compete with the larger businesses.
Thank you and kind regards,
Landlord Jugjot Dosanjh saw the note when he drove to Slough. He panicked and immediate took the two occupants of the Elite Paradise Suite, staying in the back garden extension, to his own home believed to be in Windsor.
Afterwards Mr Dosanjh ordered two existing sets of tenants, paying full rent and living in the normal part of the house, to immediately get-out. They did not want to leave.
Mr Dosanjh returned to the house with 4 or 5
assistants, including his
Their presence, the Slough Times believes, frightened and intimidated the tenants. One couple then quickly left despite having the legal Right to continue living there until a court hearing, probably in 2 or 3 months.
Mr Dosanjh's son, aged about 20, forename unknown, told the Slough Times the tenants had been given one week's notice. He also said the Barclay's Bank mortgage on the house was in his name.
The son volunteered he had lived in Windsor for the last 20 years – an amazing feat as his parents had told Slough Council the house, at 96 Greenside, was their only home.
The other couple, saying they did not want any violence, then hastily packed
all their belongings into plastic dustbin bags and drove to Slough High Street
accommodation they did not like and did not want to go to. They were conspicuously
scared of what landlord Jugjot Dosanjh and his
assistants might do to
Newly elected Labour councillor for the area, solicitor Waqas Sabah of Norfolk
Avenue, was asked to help but he was
away from Slough and suggested two
weak and clueless Labour councillors from Cippenham might help. Neither was
worth a phone call.
assistantscarries-out a couple's possessions to the couple's car.
From inside the house landlord Jugjot Dosanjh, described as circa 50 years old and 5 ft 11 ins tall (1m67), telephoned his son demanding the eviction was speeded-up. When the son said the tenant's car was full, the father ordered his son to use his car to take the tenant's possession away.
Neither the local authority nor the police gave the second couple any confidence they would protect them from Mr Dosanjh's eviction gang.
Worse, the police took more than an hour to attend the illegal eviction of the innocent lawful tenants.
A police officer, not involved in the case, unofficially told the Slough Times, Conservative government cuts had dangerously reduced police numbers and put Thames Valley Police into a crisis mode with insufficient manpower to keep the public safe.
A bystander told the Slough Times
Dosanjh turned-up with 5 henchmen to turf-out his paying tenants.
It all looked very intimidating. It is not what you would expect in a normally
quiet residential area.
The council are to blame because this should not be happening in
the first place. Again the council has displayed a breath-taking level of
incompetence. These forced evictions should not be happening. No point in a law
to protect people if no one enforces it.
Throughout landlord Jugjot Dosanjh hid inside the house. His 20 years-old son told police officers he was the legal owner of the house despite Land Registry records showing the lawful owners to be his father and mother.
Thames Valley Police confirmed officers attended a property in Greenside in response to a 999 call.
The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 c.43 was intended to protect citizens. Slough Council can prosecute but knowing their tolerance of criminal activity, especially when it involves council personnel, nothing can be expected.
A Planing Lawyer told the Slough Times:-
Planning is not just about size and appearance, but also about
the premises use. Clearly the premise seem to contravene the law.
It is shocking that a well-funded planning department can turn
a blind eye to this type of thing – it encourages abuse of, and contempt
for, planning rules.
They have covered-up the shocking concerns of corruption and
lost a whistle-blower's letter in January this year. I think Slough
will never improve. It stinks. That is why they can only get temporary