Tenants Win £260,000 Rent Repayment in Legal Battle Against London ‘Rogue Landlord’

In a landmark victory for renters' rights, a group of tenants in Hackney, east London, have won over £260,000 in rent repayments from billionaire landlord John Christodoulou, following a tribunal ruling that labelled him a “rogue landlord.” The decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing battle between vulnerable tenants and wealthy property owners who exploit legal loopholes and corporate structures to sidestep housing regulations.

The Case: Unlicensed HMOs and Hazardous Conditions

The dispute centres around two residential buildings—Olympic House and Simpson House—operated as Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) without the required licences. Under UK law, landlords who rent properties to three or more unrelated tenants must secure an HMO licence, which mandates strict safety and maintenance standards to protect residents.

According to the London Renters Union (LRU), which supported the tenants, the absence of HMO licences meant the properties were not subject to regular inspections or fire safety requirements. Residents reported living in hazardous conditions, including fire risks due to inadequate fire doors, faulty alarms, and overcrowding. These breaches led to the tribunal awarding £263,555.68 to 46 residents from 15 different flats—an unprecedented sum in a rent repayment order (RRO) case of this scale.

Who Is John Christodoulou?

John Christodoulou, 59, is a Cyprus-born billionaire who resides in Monaco and owns a sprawling UK property portfolio through his company, Yianis Group. According to the Sunday Times Rich List, his estimated wealth sits at £2.5 billion. Christodoulou is no stranger to controversy, having previously faced criticism from tenants’ groups and legal experts for aggressive rent collection tactics, especially during the Covid-19 lockdown.

In 2020, amid a global health crisis and growing financial insecurity, residents had asked for rent relief. Christodoulou allegedly responded dismissively, suggesting that they use the money saved from not buying lunches at work to pay their rent in full—sparking widespread outrage and ultimately catalysing the legal action that led to this year’s tribunal decision.

Tribunal Ruling: A Clear Condemnation

The legal case culminated in a March 2025 hearing before Judge Robert Latham in the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). In a stinging rebuke, Judge Latham declared, “The respondent can only be characterised as a rogue landlord.”

The tribunal found that the companies operating Olympic House and Simpson House—both owned by Christodoulou—had knowingly failed to secure the required HMO licences. As a result, the properties fell short of legal housing standards, justifying a full rent repayment under the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

The Rent Repayment Order (RRO) mechanism, introduced as part of broader housing reforms, allows tenants to reclaim rent paid to landlords who commit offences such as failing to license HMOs, unlawful eviction, or harassment.

Will Tenants See Their Money?

Despite the tribunal’s ruling, there are growing concerns that Christodoulou may evade payment. The London Renters Union has alleged that the billionaire is attempting to liquidate the companies held responsible, following suspicious transfers of property ownership between entities within his corporate group.

According to LRU members and tenant representatives, the transfer of Olympic House and Simpson House at “a large loss or undervalue” may be a deliberate ploy to avoid financial responsibility. If successful, the restructuring could leave the tenant claimants without a viable entity from which to recover the awarded funds.

Marc Sutton, a member of the Somerford Grove Renters group, which represents over 170 flats across Christodoulou-owned properties, described the manoeuvres as “an attempt to sidestep justice through corporate gymnastics.”

“This tactic exposes how wealthy landlords manipulate corporate structures to escape accountability,” Sutton said. “Tenants continue to suffer, while landlords like Christodoulou protect their wealth behind layers of companies.”

A Broken System?

The tenants’ victory, though significant, also reveals troubling gaps in housing enforcement. Jordan Osserman, spokesperson for the campaign, put it bluntly: “This case shows how the law is rigged against renters. Even when we win, landlords can game the system.”

Indeed, this outcome underscores a larger systemic issue: while renters may succeed in court, the complexity of company law often enables landlords to shield themselves from consequences. The limited powers of local authorities to enforce RRO judgments—especially when the corporate shell is dissolved—only compounds the injustice.

The Role of the London Renters Union

The case demonstrates the growing influence of tenant-led organisations like the London Renters Union. By offering legal assistance, media advocacy, and community support, the LRU empowers renters to challenge abuses by powerful landlords.

Their involvement in this case was instrumental, not only in organising tenants across multiple buildings but also in publicising the unsafe conditions and pressuring regulatory bodies to take action.

“The only way we can fight back is by organising and taking collective action,” Osserman said. “Our fight doesn’t end with this ruling—we will keep pushing to ensure that Christodoulou is held accountable and that no landlord is above the law.”

What’s Next for Renters’ Rights?

This case could set a powerful precedent for tenants across the UK. It signals that landlords operating illegally, no matter how wealthy or well-connected, are not immune to scrutiny. However, it also highlights the urgent need for legal reform:

• Stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure landlords comply with RROs
   
• Greater transparency in property ownership to prevent evasive transfers
   
• Improved support for renters navigating legal claims against corporate landlords
   
• Automatic fines or criminal penalties for landlords who operate unlicensed HMOs
   

Without these changes, tenants may continue to face housing insecurity while landlords exploit legal grey areas.

Conclusion

The £260,000 rent repayment ruling is a milestone in the UK housing justice movement, but it also lays bare the inequality embedded in the current housing system. Tenants have shown that when organised, they can challenge billionaires and win. However, the battle is far from over.

If landlords can move assets across company lines to avoid paying what courts have ordered, what hope remains for genuine accountability?

For now, the tenants of Olympic House and Simpson House have scored a crucial victory—one that may inspire similar action across the country. But until the system closes its loopholes, justice for renters will remain a hard-fought prize, not a guarantee.

Need Help with a Property Dispute?
 

Whether you're dealing with boundary issues, breach of contract, or nuisance claims, our experienced property litigation solicitors are here to protect your rights and resolve conflicts efficiently.

Get expert legal advice today —Contact Parachute Law for a free initial consultation.