In what could be said to be a landmark set of rulings, a group of tenants of two east London blocks (Olympic House and Simpson House in Hackney) developed out of former warehouses have collectively won rent repayment orders totalling £263,000 awarded against a billionaire described by one judge as a “rogue landlord”. In total, this makes the orders the highest-ever rent repayment award in the UK (thus far).

Disputes between the landlord and the tenants appear to have started during the Covid-19 pandemic when the landlord, John Christodoulou, allegedly told tenants (according to the London Renters Union) that they could use money they saved on not having to buy work lunches to pay their rent in full.

In all, 46 tenants from 15 flats took Mr Christodoulou and the companies he utilised to court. In one Upper Tier Tribunal (UTT) hearing in 2022 where one of the landlord’s companies appealed against an RRO awarded by the First Tier Tribunal to three residents of Simpson House, Deputy Chamber President Martin Rodger QC said the landlord’s “failures suggested more than just an isolated lapse …. but indicate instead that the Landlord’s business practices involved a systematic or institutional neglect of regulatory requirements ….”.

Whilst explaining which issues he would not take account of (such as alleged videoing and photographing of residents) and why he would not take these into account, the Deputy President increased the FTT’s initial RRO award from 65% of rent paid to “just under” 80%. This was due to the large size of the landlord’s rental business, the fact that the properties were unlicensed at the time (when they should have had HMO licences) and the fact that gas safety certificates had not been provided to tenants.

In one of the 2025 hearings involving 3 tenants of Olympic House, Judge Robert Latham said “We are dealing with a large portfolio landlord. There is evidence that the Respondent (one of Mr Christodoulou’s companies) has failed to licence a large number of flats. The Respondent can only be characterised as a rogue landlord.” These tenants had applied for a 100% RRO, however, the judge set the RRO at 70% (£20,930). He also pointed out, in reference to the Simpson House hearing, that a different building and different company were involved.

And therein lies the rub for these 46 former and current tenants of these blocks. It appears that the landlord is allegedly “liquidating” his companies and residents, former residents and their representatives now fear that they may not see the RRO monies paid.

Nevertheless, these RRO decisions (and the significant amount involved) still, and pointedly, all underline one thing. Namely, that RROs are meant principally as a deterrence to discourage rogue landlord behaviour as far as running licensable but unlicensed rental properties is concerned. Getting payment made is another issue altogether.