Another odd piece from the weird and wonderful world of East London News
Shelina Akhtar: Will The Truth Emerge?
Cllr Akhtar explained that legal advice has prevented her from countering the negative presumptions and false rumours that are currently being spread in the media. She told us that she will be in a position to explain some of the misunderstandings presented as fact in the press soon. She also indicated she may well resign her council seat after the case has concluded, because of the stress caused by the media frenzy.
Press reports allege that Cllr Akhtar has twice been convicted of benefit fraud, had sublet her housing association flat while claiming benefits on it and had even changed her name from Akhtar to “Aktar” in an alleged attempt to hide her past from the public. ELN has discovered that there are explanations for Cllr Akhtar’s actions.
Shelina Akhtar was elected to represent the people of Spitalfields & Banglatown in May 2010 and for council purposes gave her address as 37 Toynbee Street, E1 in that same ward. ELN now understands this is in fact the home of her mother, who is in poor health. Within two months of being elected, Cllr Akhtar was standing in Thames Magistrates’ Court charged with three counts of benefits fraud and fraud by false representation relating to a Swan Housing Association property leased in her name in Blackwall Way, E14.
ELN understands that the Blackwall Way flat was always Cllr Akhtar’s main abode, but because she wanted to avoid the social stigma in her community which would attach to a single woman living alone, she recorded Toynbee Street as her official address. With her mother unwell and since the death of her father, Cllr Akhtar had been de facto head of her family and, as such, had to spend much time at the family home.
It has since been reported that whilst she was “living” at Toynbee Street, Cllr Akhtar was also allegedly subletting her social housing property at 112 Blackwall Way while – it has been claimed – receiving Housing and Council Tax Benefit for it.
What is true is that Cllr Shelina Akhtar was found guilty on three counts of defrauding the public at Thames Magistrates Court in July 2010 and sentenced to 100 hours community service. She was also made to pay £250 costs.
At some point during 2010 the spelling of her surname began to be changed in official documents from being spelt “Akhtar” to “Aktar”. In a motion tabled to the Council and in a letter written to the chief legal officer of the council, the Conservative Group claims this was “a ruse” to avoid public association with her July 2010 conviction under the name “Akhtar”. Cllr Akhtar has told us that she will explain what happened after her court case concludes on 6th February.
Cllr Akhtar received the standard backbench councillor’s allowance of £10,065 per year from Tower Hamlets. She also worked part-time work at Tower Hamlets College. According to Tower Hamlets Benefits Calculator, it would appear the councillor (even without her part time job being taken into account) would not have been eligible to receive any benefits. Cllr Akhtar has told us that she claimed only benefits which she believes she was entitled to. We expect the councillor to be able to give a full explanation after 6th February.
The hearing in February will deal with a second round of charges, that Cllr Akhtar failed “to notify changes to her circumstances” – also in relation to receiving benefits at the Blackwall Way property. Earlier this month, Cllr Akhtar pleaded guilty to the new charges against her. She is now awaiting sentencing. If she is sentenced to three months (or more) imprisonment, it follows that under the Section 80 of the Local Government Act (1972) that her council seat would become vacant and a by-election must be called. If the sentence is non-custodial or for less than three months, then there is no legal obligation for her to vacate her seat.
Political leaders in the Borough have called on Cllr Akhtar to resign her seat, regardless of her sentence – thus forcing another winter by-election on the people of Spitalfields & Banglatown.
Mayor Lutfur Rahman commented: “As I have consistently made clear, elected politicians and public servants have a moral and legal duty to abide by the highest standards of personal conduct. The council takes a tough stance against the misuse of public funds. That is why despite the fact that Cllr Aktar is not part of any official group I have asked her to resign her seat as a councillor as well as to return the benefit overpayment.”
Cllr. Peter Golds, Leader of the Conservative councillors, has formally written to the Council demanding that Akhtar is immediately suspended from the council because her continued involvement is “bringing the council in to disrepute.”
Cllr Josh Peck, Leader of the Labour councilors, has said, “In most local authorities it would be inconceivable that she didn’t resign on the first occasion.” Cllr Peck has not commented on Labour’s role in selecting Cllr Akhtar as a candidate in the first place.
Cllr Akhtar was elected as a Labour Councillor in May 2010. She was vetted by a team from the Greater London Labour Party and was deemed to be a suitable candidate. Usually Borough Labour Parties select their own candidates, but London Labour Party bosses pulled rank over the Tower Hamlets Party and chose all its candidates in the Borough – insisting that it was more competent to do so than local members. This is the second time that a candidate who received a positive vetting from the London Labour Party has come a cropper. Although there has been no sign of a rethink on procedures at Labour Party HQ, the Regional Director who supervised the process, Ken Clark, was exiled to Scotland some months ago.
Cllr Akhtar resigned from the Labour Party in September 2010 and now sits as an Independent councillor.
As the dust from the Cllr Akhtar affair settles down, ELN is asking the question: if one councillor is able to conceal past convictions from the local authority – could there be more? We believe the people of Tower Hamlets have the right to know if their elected representatives are the recipients of social housing and whether they are receiving any benefits from the authority that is also paying their allowances.
We have written on your behalf to each of the 50 other councillors at Tower Hamlets, asking a series of simple questions that put on record their domestic circumstances and help bring closure to the media speculation.
We asked each councillor:
Are you the authorised tenant of either a council or housing association property?
If so, are you or have you ever sublet that property to another person?
Have you claimed either Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit while serving as a councillor at Tower Hamlets?
So far we have received responses from about a quarter of the council. We shall print their responses to these questions and expose those who refuse to be open with their electorate in the next issue of the East London News.
Trial by Jeory 
Does Cllr Akhtar not understand the judicial process?
1. By pleading guilty to a charge she is saying this is her statement as to the truth of what happened ie she misrepresented her circumstances and she claimed money that was not due to her.
2. If she has any another explanation then it should have been presented at the trial
3. If she gave this explanation at the trial, her conviction indicates that, when examined at the trial, her explanation was not accepted by the Court.
4. If she’s hoping for an appeal on the basis of this explanation she obviously does not understand the way the appeals process works.
I wonder who’s advising Cllr Akhtar as to the legal process. On the basis of these “facts” as reported, they don’t seem to be doing a very good job of representing their client.
Does Cllr Akhtar understand that nobody was forcing her to make claims for benefits?
However if she believes herself eligible and makes a claim she MUST make a declaration as to the factual accuracy of ALL information supplied for the purposes of assessing the claim.
Bottom line – there are NO EXCUSES for supplying incorrect information!
Anybody – including Councillors – who misrepresent their circumstances can be convicted of an offence – which might:
* result in a prison sentence
* lead to the loss of a social housing tenancy
* prompt a suspension of any benefits being claimed.
see http://campaigns.dwp.gov.uk/campaigns/benefit-thieves/ and http://campaigns.dwp.gov.uk/campaigns/benefit-thieves/penalties.asp
Ted, you’ve written East *End* News in your intro.
amended – thanks
“…because she wanted to avoid the social stigma in her community which would attach to a single woman living alone, she recorded Toynbee Street as her official address.”
Well now Ms Akhtar/Aktar has the status of being a convicted criminal which I would suggest (and hope) carries a greater social stigma among ALL communities.
What hacks me off (apart from the element of her status as a councillor) is that people like her and the activities she’s done mean that people like me who are having to claim what they can while they try to get back into the job market and genuinely need the support are treated like criminals by the DSS (sorry, jobcentre plus) and humiliated and treated like scroungers and cheats unless we can prove that we’re not.
Not good enough Shelina. Not only has she admitted to doing these things, but has admitted to doing them in the terms stated. If she pled guilty to failing dishonestly to disclose to the DWP material information, namely that she sublet her Housing Association home, then I’m afraid that that means she sublet her home regardless of what really happened.
Her explanation wouldn’t stand up in any court, civil or criminal, as the Judge would not go behind the fact that she pled guilty to these offences in these terms. This smacks of last-ditch PR guff to me.
Is that not a reason to call a mis – trial (it’s another word, i forget) and do it over again?
This time with a Not Guilty plea entered by the clerk / magistrate and go the distance, only with no prospect of leniency for admission?
You see, the plea must be genuinely believed by the defendant to be admissible.
End of my knowledge right there.
I am suspicious of that advice, noted above, knowing a really genuine and thoughtful local defense lawyer who I can’t imagine would represent a client who plead guilty for convenience. However I am aware the system can be so gamed. Bringing out evidence in discovery can run the real risk of committal for Crown, and all sorts made public. I’ll ask when we next speak, though that’s not so often as I’d like.
At the end of the day there is an incredible amount of bollocks flying around here. I would earnestly like to know who precisely has been to this trial every day and can speak with such authority about what so and so may or may not think or believe? Ted have you been? How often? Shelina Akhtar showed enormous contrition when I spoke to her about what she has done wrong. However, there has been a lot of rubbish and pure speculation written in press and on various blogs hostile to her by nature from journalists who have just copied what someone else has written and added their own biased theories to it and that is quite unfair.
James, she was convicted. She pleaded guilty. The facts speak for themselves: She is a benefit fraudster and still in receipt of a £10k councillor’s allowance. Her contrition does not seem to extend to giving that bit up.
It couldn’t be that she’s now feeling extremely sorry having realised that she stands a very good chance of going to prison?
The more relevant questions are:
* Has she paid the money back yet?
* Has she paid her debt to the taxpayers who she stole from?
Spare me the mealy mouthed cryptic explanations. Surely there must be other convicted criminals who are more deserving of our greater understanding? For me defrauding the public purse is contemptible on its own, but to do so whilst holding public office is exponentially worse. The road back for Shelina Akhtar starts with shutting up, resigning as a councillor and spending a very long time earning back trust by demonstrably selfless work for the community.
Even though somene pleads guilty, there are often mitigating circumstances which can be expressed in the court before sentencing. If no-one went to the court, has anyone seen a transcript? If not then maybe there should be a spell at the Johann Hari Institute regarding journalistic standards.
I think this is much more fun:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24030829-councils-speaker-runs-up-pound-9000-taxi-bill-after-being-stripped-of-his-official-car.do
David Donoghue – Thank you for pointing out the article about Mizan’s taxi fares. I understand that the trip to Birmingham was to attend the opening of a restaurant. Could someone explain to me what this has to do with Tower Hamlets, and why council tax payers are expected to pay his taxi fare?
Erm, so this woman has admitted to something in court, been found guilty, but is now claiming that it is all a big misunderstanding?
Yeah, right love. Forgive me if I don’t join you in la-la land.
Tim.
[…] supporters from his 2010 mayoral election campaign has been spending time inside a court room. The list is […]
I’ve just discovered an interesting piece of Council Policy which the Council appears to have forgotten about. Ted – maybe you could draw it to the attention of the people in charge of PR as they appear to be unaware of it?
This paragraph which follows comes from the “Prevnting Fraud and Corruption” section of the Council’s own Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=2d1f9b56-6ebf-4fe6-ac60-7268cb9e1436&version=-1
“Publicity
5.5.1 Where evidence of irregularity has been found and prosecuted all cases will be publicised through press articles etc. to maximise awareness and to act as a deterrent to others.”
I don’t think the PR department quite understand how to translate convictions into publicity which will deter others.
Maybe they’ll do better next time – after the sentencing?
I’d put in a request now for the press release which will be compliant with that section of Council Policy. That gives them a fighting chance of getting their act together in time……
Perhaps the question an honest journalist should ask Shelina – and put to all LBTH councillors – is: Have you ever done an honest day’s work in your life?
It would then be very illustrative to plot of graph of their answers against, for example, the professed depth of their religious commitment.
As a Bengali women living in Tower Hamlets, I get sick to death of fellow Bengali females who, when convenient, love to use that old chestnut ‘the community will talk’. Firstly, the ‘community’ are now getting used to seeing the many changes happening amongst the young Bangladeshi’s and are really ‘not bovvered’. Secondly, it still doesn’t explain why you needed to sublet your council property (ie steal it from those who actually need it) and claim benefits for it. Would the community have talked if you hadn’t? Thirdly, why would an educated, confident career woman like yourself care about what paan chewing bored housewives think? Grow up Shelina, this isn’t the eighties anymore, you can’t fob the teachers of with the pathetic ‘opressed Bengali girl’ routine. Just admit it – like the most of your fellow cllr members you’re just a greedy little charlatan who’s grabbing what they can when they can.
Now that Fred the Shred has been stripped of his knighthood http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/31/fred-goodwin-loses-knighthood maybe the government will be minded to insist that all politicians found guilty of defrauding the public purse must immediately lose their political status as MPs or Councillors.
No waiting to see if they get a three month prison sentence as at present. ANY fraud of the public purse should make you incompetent to hold public office.
Just a thought……
It would be very, very popular with the electorate at large – one might even call it a votewinner……
Of course, if they extended it to those in the House of Lords as well then they could win yet more votes …
It’s such a basic idea it makes you wonder why it’s not on the statute books already. I’d certainly vote for any (non-fraudulent) politician who put it into their manifesto.
Tim