Latest news with #LondonRentersUnion
The Guardian
31-03-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Tenants win £260,000 of rent back in legal fight with London ‘rogue landlord'
Tenants of two buildings in east London have been awarded a six-figure sum in rent repayments by a tribunal after challenging a billionaire described by a judge as a 'rogue landlord'. The group of current and former residents of Olympic House and Simpson House in Hackney took companies owned by John Christodoulou to tribunal for operating unlicensed houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), which meant the buildings were not subject to the safety and quality standards required by law. The London Renters Union, which represents the tenants' group that brought the claim, said the lack of licensing left residents vulnerable to hazardous conditions, including fire risks due to inadequate safety measures. Cyprus-born Christodoulou, 59, is based in Monaco and, according to the Sunday Times rich list last year, has an estimated wealth of £2.5bn. The Guardian has contacted his company Yianis Group for comment. Jordan Osserman, a spokesperson for the campaign, said: 'This case shows how the law is rigged against renters. Christodoulou makes millions off our rent while flouting the law and cutting corners on safety.' During the hearing earlier in March, the judge in the first-tier tribunal (property chamber), Robert Latham, said: 'The respondent can only be characterised as a rogue landlord.' After a lengthy legal battle that began in 2020 – when the landlord rejected residents' request for rent relief during the Covid-19 crisis, telling them they could use money saved on lunches to pay their rent in full – 46 residents from 15 different flats across Olympic House and Simpson House have been awarded a combined total of £263,555.68. The ruling forms part of a rent repayment order (RRO). These were introduced in housing legislation in 2016 and empower the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal to force a landlord who has broken the law on housing standards to pay back part, or all, of the rent. There are now concerns that Christodoulou may not pay, despite the order. The London Renters Union said the tenants had discovered that the landlord was attempting to liquidate the companies that the judgments are against after transferring ownership of Olympic House and Simpson House from one company to another within his corporate group at a large loss or undervalue. Marc Sutton, a member of Somerford Grove Renters, which represents 170 flats in Olympic House, Simpson House and St John's Court in Hackney, all majority-owned by Christodoulou, said: 'This appears to be a deliberate attempt to evade financial responsibility through corporate restructuring. 'These tactics highlight how wealthy landlords manipulate corporate structures to avoid accountability while tenants suffer the consequences.' Osserman added: 'Even when we win in court, landlords like Christodoulou can game the system to avoid paying up.' He added: 'The only way we can fight back is by organising and taking collective action.'
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Don't whinge, millennials: it's your fault you can't afford to rent in London
'Come, all ye workers, from every land, come, join in the grand industrial band'. There is Power In a Union was originally written in 1913 for the Industrial Workers of the World, a union that focused its efforts on organising migrant workers in lumber and construction camps. Trying to unionise these workers made perfect sense to the socialist ideals of the IWW, who saw it as a way to preventing employers from using them to undercut native labour. Such were the foundations the unions of old were founded upon. But the self-interest of members can no longer be taken for granted as the raison d' être of modern 'unions'. Take the example of the hapless London Renters Union. In reply to shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp's assertion that 48 per cent of London's social housing is occupied by people who are foreign-born, suggesting that 'The UK cannot serve as the world's social housing provider', the union argued that only 75 per cent of London social renters hold UK passports. That 75 per cent of London social renters hold UK passports does not disprove that 48 per cent of London's social housing is occupied by people who are foreign-born, nor that they are proportionally more likely than private renters or owner occupiers to be economically inactive. Moreover, it is not a stunning victory for the London renter that 1 in 4 people enjoying massively subsidised housing does not have a UK passport. Surely we ought to be outraged that nearly half of the social housing in our nation's capital, some of the most expensive real estate in the world, is occupied by those who were born abroad. It will surprise no one that the London Renters Union places the blame for the UK housing system and the extortionate rates London renters pay squarely at the foot of the Government, banks, developers and landlords. Their point is that 'NOBODY should be forced to live at the whims of rip-off private landlords, NOBODY should be priced out of their communities. EVERYBODY should have access to public housing.' This is an interesting idea to explore. Public housing, despite the claims of the Left, does not come cost-free; it is sustained by taxpayers. Given that those being charged extraordinary rates by private landlords – and those supposedly represented by the LRU – are the ones most likely to be providing the tax base to fund it, one would expect the union to advocate for policies that actually reduce rents, like building more housing and reducing immigration. But by insisting on a universal and unrestricted right to social houses, regardless of tax contribution or national belonging, they are agitating against the interests of their own members; the more social housing is allocated to first-generation migrants who are net fiscal drains, the greater the tax burden on those London renters who have to shoulder the costs. Housing is a scarce resource: more demand with a static supply raises prices. When immigrants first arrived in large numbers into London during the 1960s, they often lacked the local connections necessary to secure a spot on the housing list, leaving them in low-quality private rentals. Many saw this as unjust and advocated for reform, leading to the current needs-based system. Under the new rules, a large Bangladeshi family living in substandard conditions could accumulate enough points to be prioritised over young local white residents, who may have been waiting for years. This may explain why boroughs like Tower Hamlets have a massive over-representation of those with migrant heritage compared to the native population. The London Renters Union, in defending a housing model that prioritises those who are more likely to be economically inactive rather than workers struggling under to pay private rents, serves capital rather than its members. It was once said that mass migration meant you had to compete with the world's richest on the housing market and the world's poorest on the labour market: the LRU is proving that renters have to fight their own 'union' too. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Don't whinge, millennials: it's your fault you can't afford to rent in London
'Come, all ye workers, from every land, come, join in the grand industrial band'. There is Power In a Union was originally written in 1913 for the Industrial Workers of the World, a union that focused its efforts on organising migrant workers in lumber and construction camps. Trying to unionise these workers made perfect sense to the socialist ideals of the IWW, who saw it as a way to preventing employers from using them to undercut native labour. Such were the foundations the unions of old were founded upon. But the self-interest of members can no longer be taken for granted as the raison d' être of modern 'unions'. Take the example of the hapless London Renters Union. In reply to shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp's assertion that 48 per cent of London's social housing is occupied by people who are foreign-born, suggesting that 'The UK cannot serve as the world's social housing provider', the union argued that only 75 per cent of London social renters hold UK passports. That 75 per cent of London social renters hold UK passports does not disprove that 48 per cent of London's social housing is occupied by people who are foreign-born, nor that they are proportionally more likely than private renters or owner occupiers to be economically inactive. Moreover, it is not a stunning victory for the London renter that 1 in 4 people enjoying massively subsidised housing does not have a UK passport. Surely we ought to be outraged that nearly half of the social housing in our nation's capital, some of the most expensive real estate in the world, is occupied by those who were born abroad. It will surprise no one that the London Renters Union places the blame for the UK housing system and the extortionate rates London renters pay squarely at the foot of the Government, banks, developers and landlords. Their point is that 'NOBODY should be forced to live at the whims of rip-off private landlords, NOBODY should be priced out of their communities. EVERYBODY should have access to public housing.' This is an interesting idea to explore. Public housing, despite the claims of the Left, does not come cost-free; it is sustained by taxpayers. Given that those being charged extraordinary rates by private landlords – and those supposedly represented by the LRU – are the ones most likely to be providing the tax base to fund it, one would expect the union to advocate for policies that actually reduce rents, like building more housing and reducing immigration. But by insisting on a universal and unrestricted right to social houses, regardless of tax contribution or national belonging, they are agitating against the interests of their own members; the more social housing is allocated to first-generation migrants who are net fiscal drains, the greater the tax burden on those London renters who have to shoulder the costs. Housing is a scarce resource: more demand with a static supply raises prices. When immigrants first arrived in large numbers into London during the 1960s, they often lacked the local connections necessary to secure a spot on the housing list, leaving them in low-quality private rentals. Many saw this as unjust and advocated for reform, leading to the current needs-based system. Under the new rules, a large Bangladeshi family living in substandard conditions could accumulate enough points to be prioritised over young local white residents, who may have been waiting for years. This may explain why boroughs like Tower Hamlets have a massive over-representation of those with migrant heritage compared to the native population. The London Renters Union, in defending a housing model that prioritises those who are more likely to be economically inactive rather than workers struggling under to pay private rents, serves capital rather than its members. It was once said that mass migration meant you had to compete with the world's richest on the housing market and the world's poorest on the labour market: the LRU is proving that renters have to fight their own 'union' too.
