A CONVICTED fraudster who once claimed benefits on behalf of a dead tenant will be allowed to continue renting out property after a banning order against him was rejected.

A judge ruled a "remarkable oversight" by Blackburn with Darwen Council had voided their application to prevent Sakib Zarif from conducting further business.

Zarif, who owns several properties in Blackburn, became the subject of a criminal investigation in 2019 after concerns were raised about the potential exploitation of some of his tenants.

The probe found the 34-year-old had claimed benefits from one of his tenants following his death, and also uncovered he was part of a wider conspiracy to defraud the Department of Work and Pensions, after he was found to have lied about being disabled.

His mother Khalida Zarif, 52, was also involved and the pair were sentenced to a combined total of more than two years and three months behind bars.

In 2019, Blackburn with Darwen Council applied for a ‘banning order’ on Sakib Zarif with the intention of disabling him from leasing out homes following his conviction.

However a tribunal has now thrown out the application after an administrative error meant paperwork pivotal to the case was sent to the wrong address.

Martin Eden, the council’s strategic director of environment and operations, said the council was "extremely disappointed" by the decision, and now intends to ask the Government for a change in legislation.

Paperwork from the tribunal notes Zarif had given notice he intended to ask for the application to be struck-off on the grounds it had "no reasonable prospect of success" – more specifically that the council’s application was invalid because they had failed to give him notice in accordance with the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

It was later established the council had delivered their notice on the last day they were legally able to do so, getting an officer to post a letter by hand to a property located in Preston New Road.

While Zarif did not dispute eventually receiving the paperwork, he claimed the address it had been delivered to was not his home address.

Judge Holbrook wrote in his report: “As far as the envelope delivered on July 15, 2020, is concerned, Mr Zarif says that it did not come to his attention until it was handed to him by his mother, several days after it was delivered to her home.

"The Council has not challenged this assertion.”

Zarif went on to produce paperwork to prove his registered address was in fact in Redlam, showing a copy of his driving licence, a poll card, a bank statement and a hospital appointment letter to prove his case.

Judge Holbrook wrote: “We note all four documents post-date the alleged service of the notice of intended proceedings.

"However, Mr Zarif has also produced copies of correspondence between himself and the council which indicates he has lived at the address in Redlam for several years.

“This includes copies of more than 15 letters sent to Mr Zarif by the council’s environmental health department on various dates between 2011 and June 10, 2020.”

He continued: “The obvious question therefore is why did the council choose to give Mr Zarif a notice of intended proceedings by delivering it to Preston New Road?”

The council officer involved in the case stated the letter had been delivered to the Preston New Road address for two reasons – because a police officer involved in the case had told her this was his address according to the police national computer, and because a search of Companies House records revealed that Zarif was registered as a person with significant control over a business registered to that address.

Judge Holmes continued: “Crucially, however, at the time when the notice of intended proceedings was prepared and delivered, the officer was unaware the council had been corresponding with Mr Zarif at Redlam for many years.

“She said because copies of such correspondence were held by another department within the council, she did not have access to it.

“Nor regrettably did either the officer or the council’s legal department make internal enquiries in the course of preparing to serve the notice of intended proceedings as to whether other departments might hold relevant information of this kind.”

Having taken all of that into account, the tribunal found the Redlam address to be Zarif’s home since 2011, stating if the council had delivered the notice of intended proceeding to this address, then the notice would have been valid.

Judge Holmes said: “The council made insufficient checks to ascertain Mr Zarif’s correct address: in particular, by failing to establish what information the council itself held in this regard.

“Had the entirety of such information been taken into account, it would have been very clear Mr Zarif had held himself out as residing at Redlam for a period of several years. 

“Moreover, the information held by the council concerned Mr Zarif’s activities as a landlord and it is therefore remarkable it was overlooked given the purpose of the notice of intended proceedings.”

The tribunal concluded the "onus is on the council" to show that a notice of intended proceeding was given.

Judge Holmes added: “By delivering the notice to the wrong address and at the eleventh hour, the council failed to ensure that Mr Zarif received it before July 16, 2020.

“Although this notice did come to his attention some days later, it was not given within the six-month period required by the Act.

“That is a mandatory requirement and the failure to comply with it is necessarily fatal to the council’s ability to apply successfully for a banning order against Mr Zarif.”

An application for costs order against the council made by Zarif was rejected, with the Tribunal saying: “Whilst the Council’s internal processes could clearly have been improved in order to avoid the error which has been highlighted above, we have no doubt that the banning order application was made in good faith and we do not consider  the council acted unreasonably, either by making the application or by continuing the proceedings.”

Mr Eden said: “We are extremely disappointed by the Tribunal’s decision and intend to ask Government for a change in legislation.

"We hope this will help to improve the process of handling banning orders in the future.

“Quite rightly, Mr Zarif’s application for his legal costs that he made against the Council was refused.

“The council is committed to protecting vulnerable residents from the practices of rogue landlords and will continue to use every means possible to target those that take advantage of those in greatest need.”