Forum Topic

Cllr Virk

It will be interesting to see where Cllr Virk will be sitting this evening at the Borough AGM and what if any action the Labour Party have taken against him since the local Times published this story about him a few days ago.Pressure was growing today for a councillor to step down after he was convicted for illegally converting a family house into flats. Councillor Jiwan Virk repeatedly ignored requests by council officers to reverse the changes he had made, including adding a porch extension, without planning permission. It led to the Labour councillor for Bedfont appearing before Feltham Magistrates’ Court on Monday where he was ordered to pay a £1,000 fine and £2,958 costs. Councillor Mark Bowen, deputy leader of Hounslow Council, said: “If Labour have got any commitment whatsoever to high standards in public life they should expel him from the Labour Group. “As for Councillor Virk, I think he should as a minimum agree never to participate in planning decisions again. He would recover some dignity to stand down as a councillor and call a byelection. “I think he is both shaming himself and his party, and I think residents in this borough will be disgusted.” Coun Virk said he was “upset” by the prosecution and had no plans to step down, accusing Coun Bowen of pursuing the case against him. The landlord, of Basildene Road, Hounslow, said: “Mark Bowen is the deputy leader, and as deputy leader he is instigating the legal department to do these things.” He said he had complied with an enforcement notice almost a month before he was issued with a court summons in February this year, adding he could not do it before because he needed to evict a young family living at the property. But magistrates ruled Coun Virk had not done all he could be reasonably expected to do in order to comply with the notice, which was issued in July last year. The council had first contacted him in June 2005 to arrange to inspect the property after an earlier visit found it had been converted into two residential units. Councillor Jagdish Sharma, leader of the Labour Group, said that Coun Virk’s punishment would be decided at a group meeting. He said: “For any member not to follow the rules and regulations of the council deserves punishment, so in my view he will be punished for that. “I will give my views very forcefully in the group meeting, but ultimately it’s not in my hands.”

Paul Fisher ● 6218d19 Comments

David McLoughlin ● 6189d

Bump

David McLoughlin ● 6191d

Just to keep you all up to date the folowing motion was passed 26 to 0 at a meeting of the Labour Group and delegates from the local government committee of the Hounslow Borough Labour Party on the 10th of June:"That the Labour Group Whip be withdrawn from Cllr. Jiwan Virk for an indefinite period,for briging the labour Group into disrepute by: 1) Failing to comply with an Enforcement Notice, and being found guilty of that offence at Feltham Magistrates Court on 11 May, despite giving assurances to labour Group on 21st August 2008 that the required work had been carried out."

David McLoughlin ● 6191d

Given the track record of this council in clamping down on planning transgressions, rightly in my view, I don't think Cllr. Virk could claim political bias. He was trying it on and got caught, instead of whining he should grow up and accept he was out of order and brought his party into disrepute too. He is a disgrace.

Vanessa Smith ● 6207d

"If ... is innocent then I am sure he will be able to prove so in the courts"Basic principles - people should abide by the law. When warned about transgression they should stop. When prosecuted for transgression they should 'fess up and pay the fine.if in public office they should not only act within the law but also behave in such a manner as to give no doubts on that score. On the facts as presented, Councillor Virk has transgressed and should resign, and the Labour Group were right to suspend him.Party allegiances or support don't come into it. A higher standard is called for from those in public office.On a secondary issue, was the prosecution driven by politically-motivated pressure? Here Councillor Virk or any Hounslow resident could complain to the local Standards Committee, and an investigation would follow. It doesn't altogether follow that because a Labour councillor has been prosecuted by a Council under a Conservative-and-coalition administration, the prosecution was politically driven. But it might seem so, so maybe a referral to the Standards Committee. If the administration is innocent then I am sure they will be able to prove so at the Committee

Dan Filson ● 6207d

What a poor example this sets!We have this thread about a Councillor's conviction following the conversion without planning permission of a family home into flats and then somewhere else amongst the threads was an unrelated comment about one of the biggest problems that Councillors have to deal with is housing problems.One of the worst places I have lived was a house conversion which had no sound insulation or floor strengthening between the separate dwellings. This does not make life easy - it creates tension and ill-feeling between the residents of the separate dwellings and with the current fashion for wooden or laminate floors it can be a nightmare made even worse if the living room or kitchen is above the bedroom.  These conversions also often have no outside amenity space which includes no space for bins with the consequence that the whole of the rest of the community has to live with what ought to be dealt with as a health and safety matter.  Then there is also the matter of fire-protection between dwellings.I don't know anythng about Councillor Virk's flats - they may be wonderful.  What I do know though is that if houses are converted cheaply without following any of the rules and in particular those for safety and good living standards then the result can be bad for the community as a whole as those living there are uncomfortable, unsympathetic and unhappy with their environment and they consequently try and move on as fast as they can resulting in a transient population.

Philippa Bond ● 6207d

Shouldn't you be at Goodwood today, Adam?

John Connelly ● 6217d

David, do you actually put on these special glasses that only see things 'blue' ?.  Some of the points you make are valid, but get so wholly lost in political rhetoric/blindness that they lose all credibility.  Are you also 'refreshed' to hear how the local Labour party have taken steps against Councillor Virk ?.Adam (neither blue nor red nor yellow nor green)

Adam Beamish ● 6217d

It is refreshing to know that this Conservative led Council is not afraid to take action against Councillors who do not comply with the law. If Councillor Virk is innocent then I am sure he will be able to prove so in the courts.It makes a refreshing change from a Labour Government which seems unwilling to take action against Cabinet Ministers and MP's who breach the spirit if not the letter of the law with regard to Additional Cost Allowances, Expenses and Capital Gains Tax.

David Giles ● 6217d

Phil/John,Yes I suspect what happened in this case was that Cllr Virk committed an offence under Section 179 of the T&CP Act by not complying with the enforcement notice within the period specified on the notice, which is technically a criminal offence upon summary conviction.I suspect the Council probably commenced prosecution proceedings earlier this year after that period for compliance had elapsed, without full compliance being secured.  At some time between commencement of proceedings and the eventual court proceedings, Cllr. Virk presumably complied with the notice, leaving the Council with a decision as to whether to drop the prosecution or to continue with it (the prosecution was bound to succeed as technically full compliance had not been achieved within the legally defined period as set out in the notice).It does leave a slightly uneasy taste in my mouth - as one has to question whether the Council would always prosecute any individual in the same circumstances, as the whole purpose of the planning enforcement regime is to ensure that the harm of any unauthorised activity/development is remedied or brought under the control of the Council, not to take people to court to be made an example of.I'll openly state that during my time at LBH my Team didn't carry out enough prosecutions (predominantly due to the volume of work and resource issues) but it's pleasing to see that many of the prosecutions currently being pursued or recently reported to Councillors relate to enforcement notice that were served in my 'tenure' at LBH.

Adam Beamish ● 6217d

My understanding is that he was suspended first time for allowing himself to be open to enforcement action. The latest suspension appears to be based on his failing to comply.I don't know what the letter from the council states, but if it contradicts the evidence presented in court he may have a case on appeal. Whatever, if the matter is subjudice the Labour Group will wait for his appeal to take place before taking further action. (Note that if a resident complains about the council and takes court action the council complaints procedure is automatically suspended until the court has reached a verdict.)

John Connelly ● 6217d

JohnI don't know the finer points of the Virk case but I am not sure that your conclusion is necessarily true.  If he is alleging that he complied with an Enforcement Notice and was then prosecuted then I'm guessing you would be correct.  Indeed if this were the case one would also have to call into question the competence of the magistrate(s).If however he only complied with the notice once legal proceedings were underway this would be about as defensible in law as a bank robber handing back his loot after having been apprehended whilst boarding a plane to Rio. Doubtless whatever evidence is said to be available to support his case will be examined at the appeal hearing.

Phil Andrews ● 6217d

JohnWould the Labour Group not have considered your valid points though before they suspended him the first time over this matter?

Paul Fisher ● 6217d

If he does appeal against conviction it will not be possible for the Labour Group to take further action against him as the matter would still be sub judice. What is intriguing is Jivan Virk's claim that he received a letter from the council stating he had complied with the enforcement notice the day after his conviction. If this is true then it would seem that council officers messed things up!

John Connelly ● 6217d

A councillor who ignored planning regulations and illegally converted a house into flats has been suspended. Councillor Jiwan Virk was hauled before senior members of the Labour Group on Tuesday to face disciplinary action after magistrates fined him for turning a house in Basildene Road, Hounslow, into two apartments and adding a porch extension. A panel of six members, including Labour leader Councillor Jagdish Sharma, unanimously decided that the Bedfont councillor should be suspended with immediate effect. Coun Virk will learn his full punishment at a group meeting on June 10. Coun Sharma said: “The whip could be withrawn for a longer period, or there are different options. The group will discuss all the options, we have to follow the proper procedure. “He can remain in the council but it is for him as well to decide whether it is worthwhile to stay.” Councillor Surjit Dhaliwal, the Labour Group’s chief whip, said: “Having read last Friday’s papers, and received complaints from colleagues, I have instigated the Labour Group disciplinary process according to our rules. “Coun Virk’s behaviour is not acceptable, and is not what is expected from a Labour councillor.” Councillor Mark Bowen, deputy leader of Hounslow Council, said Coun Virk should have been expelled “immediately” if Labour had “any real commitment to high standards in public life.” Coun Virk told the panel he recieved a council letter on May 12 - the day after he was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £2,958 costs at Feltham Magistrates' Court - saying he had complied with an enforcement notice. He missed out on the election of the new mayor at a full borough council meeting which immediately followed his hearing last night. The council first contacted Coun Virk in June 2005 to arrange an inspection of the property after an earlier visit found it had been converted into two flats. An enforcement notice was issued in July last year, ordering him to reverse the changes. Magistrates ruled on May 11 that Coun Virk, who rented the apartments to two young families, had not done what was reasonably expected to comply with the notice. Coun Virk told the Hounslow and Brentford Times that he planned to appeal against his conviction

Paul Fisher ● 6217d

Only if he is absent for more than some specified period without leave of absence.Absence of itself is not necessarily an indicator of an impending by-election.  It might indicate he is p***ed off with the Council , though, and is "considering his position".I tend to agree with Adam on the "taking a stand and making an example" issue.

Dan Filson ● 6217d

Well the town planning legislation doesn't allow for that Steve, indeed I can't off the top of my head think of one piece of legislation that does - the deterrent is obviously the unwanted publicity, in the same way as if a police officer gets caught speeding etc.I must say I totally disagree with you, I'd be far from happy if I knew the Council's resources were being focused upon any particular individual, be it a Councillor of any political party, public figure or someone else, solely to make an example of that individual, when the actual 'offence' may be relatively minor, compared with another individual who might not have any 'reputation' or be in the public eye but their offence may be more severe.

Adam Beamish ● 6217d

Cllr Virk was absent from the Labour Party benches at the Borough Council Meeting tonight at the Civic Centre.Could a by-election be in the pipeline for his seat?

Jim Lawes ● 6217d

I believe that Council is perfectly correct if they have set out to make an example of him (e.g. by appointing expensive barristers etc.) in a way that they might not have done with other residents of the Borough,  simply because he is a Cllr. I would go as far as to say he should have received the  maximum fine for such an offence upon first conviction of £20,000 (again simply because he holds the office of Councillor and should set an example or be made an example of).

Steve Taylor ● 6217d

He should have known better and deserves everything he gets, I have no sympathy or time for people who think they can do as they like and use their position to try and wriggle out of awkward situations, sadly he is not on his own.

Vanessa Smith ● 6218d

Phil, thanks for that clarification, that would certainly make a big difference - as memory serves me if a defendant pleads not guilty in relation to such an offence in a magistrates court the matter would then have to be referred for a full trial (which makes £3k costs actually rather reasonable !).Only ever happened once in my time managing enforcement teams, extremely difficult to be found 'not guilty' of such an offence.

Adam Beamish ● 6218d

AdamWith regard to the court costs, I'm open to correction but I believe Councillor Virk pleaded Not Guilty which would have ramped up these costs.  As he demonstrably was guilty this is unlikely to have impressed the magistrates.

Phil Andrews ● 6218d

The costs awarded by the Court seem rather large compared to the actual fine (bearing in mind the maximum fine for such an offence upon first conviction is £20,000).Bearing in mind the costs can only be in relation to work the Council undertook in relation to the prosecution, the sum of almost £3000 seems a large amount to me, and whilst in no way condoning Cllr. Virk's conduct it does make me slightly wonder if Council have set out to make an example of him (e.g. by appointing expensive barristers etc.) in a way that they might not have done with other residents of the Borough.  On the other hand, clearly the court considered that this was an appropriate level of costs. Certainly I think it would be hard for Cllr Virk to continue to participate in planning decisions as it clearly doesn't set a good example and undermines the credibility of planning committees.

Adam Beamish ● 6218d