An East London landlord has been unsuccessful in his attempt to appeal a court order to repay thousands of pounds in rent after he operated an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).
The Tenant Complaints and Initial Tribunal
In 2024, four private renters who had lived in a former council flat on Hackney's George Downing Estate took their landlord, John Campbell, to a property tribunal. The central issue was that Mr Campbell had not obtained a mandatory HMO licence for the duration of their tenancies, which ran from 2020 to 2022.
The tribunal found in the tenants' favour and initially ordered the landlord to repay them a total of £14,000 in rent. The tenants had reported several problems in the property, alleging that the boiler, stove, and beds were "breaking down constantly".
One former tenant, Giuseppina Cammarano, stated that she and her housemates were without heating and hot water for approximately a week in December 2020. She revealed that on one occasion, instead of arranging a professional repair, the landlord sent his tenants a YouTube video demonstrating how to fix the broken boiler themselves.
The Landlord's Appeal and Scrutiny of His Finances
By September 2025, Mr Campbell was granted a chance to appeal the decision. He argued that the tenants had been "aggressive and opportunistic" and that he had maintained the property to a good standard. He also claimed he was unaware of the legal requirement for an HMO licence.
This claim was challenged by the group's lawyer, who pointed out that Mr Campbell is the director of a property investment business, making it unlikely he was ignorant of the law.
Mr Campbell also cited the October 2020 cyber attack on Hackney Council, which he said crippled its online licensing systems, as a reason he could not apply for a licence until after 2021.
In his appeal, the landlord claimed that repaying the rent would cause "real hardship" for his family. He submitted tax calculations showing a self-employment income of just £26,100 for the 2024/25 tax year.
However, under cross-examination, he admitted to owning a home valued at approximately £1.4 million, in which he held around £800,000 in equity. The tribunal dismissed his hardship claim, noting his tax calculations were "not conclusive evidence" of his overall financial situation and suggested he could sell the rental property if necessary to cover the repayment.
The Tribunal's Final Ruling
The tribunal rejected all of Mr Campbell's key arguments. It found the council's IT hack was irrelevant, as there was no evidence he had tried to apply for a licence before 2022. Records also showed the council's property licensing webpage remained functional after the cyber attack.
Despite this, the tribunal did acknowledge some of the landlord's points. It recognised that the boiler had ultimately been fixed "promptly" and that the property was let at a "decent standard" despite the lack of a licence. It also found that one tenant had given "misleading evidence" regarding a rental deposit.
As a result, the total repayment amount was reduced from £14,000 to roughly £11,000. Nevertheless, the core ruling against the landlord for operating an unlicensed HMO was upheld, solidifying the legal requirement for landlords to obtain the correct licences for their rental properties.
