Southend landlords fined for letting tenants live in squalid bedsits (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
Southend landlords fined for letting tenants live in squalid bedsits
10:20am Monday 18th March 2013 in Local News
Hon Shu Pang
A HUSBAND and wife who own a string of bedsits in Southend were fined nearly £5,000 after admitting they let tenants live in poor accommodation.
Mrs Yeun Ming Pang 64, and Mr Hon Shu Pang, 72, - who were once the subject of an Echo investigation into the state of their accommodation - pleaded guilty to a breach of management at 72 York Road.
A Southend Council officer visited the property after a complaint in January and found a hole in a bathroom, filthy and unsecured carpeting on the stairs, blocked drainage gulleys outside the property and damp in all the bedrooms.
The council said the Pangs had ignored warnings to improve the bedsit’s conditions.
Southend Magistrates’ Court heard that the property, which has four bedsits, had also been a haven for drug users, prostitution, and other crimes.
Tessa O’Connell, prosecuting, said: “The council had sent the Pang family legislation on the upkeep of multipule occupation houses, so there can be no defence for that. They were aware of the regulations.
“One of the occupants had complained about damp and mould in his room. When he contacted the Pangs, he was told he should have opened up his windows.
“It is for the council to constantly nag the defendants – they are the landlords and should be keeping up with the maintenance of their properties.”
The Echo had previously exposed the Pang family, which revealed that their two of their properties in 2009 failed to meet Government standards for habitation,
Comments(48)
Public Inconvenience
says...
10:31am Mon 18 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
10:41am Mon 18 Mar 13
j-w
says...
10:46am Mon 18 Mar 13
j-w
says...
10:46am Mon 18 Mar 13
heartbeat
says...
10:56am Mon 18 Mar 13
j-w wrote:Rather difficult if they
Or move to a smaller council property.
a) don't have enough money to pay up
and
b) the council don't have a smaller property to offer them!
jayman
says...
11:39am Mon 18 Mar 13
This fine fails to deal with the rot, it just paints over it...
Soouthchurch59
says...
12:20pm Mon 18 Mar 13
ORACUS
says...
12:20pm Mon 18 Mar 13
The fact that they pleaded guilty means the evidence submitted is now fact.
The tenants can take their turn now that the path has been cleared for them by the council.
These bad landlords might have to fork out loads more money before its all over.
A positive story involving SBC for a change.
notinwestcliffanymore
says...
12:26pm Mon 18 Mar 13
.
.
.well then the pangs are doing a vital service keeping this type away fron the majority of socitey. If they want to live in luxury then go to prision
predator 107
says...
12:50pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:It is NOT a Tax, the term Bedroom Tax has been set by left wing media and the public. Social Taxpayer subsidised housing is not a right, simply a privilege which can be taken away. If you have spare rooms, then yes, when a smaller taxpayer subsidised social property comes available,move. If you wish to live in a large home, then pay for it yourself. Far too many benefits in this country. As far as I am concerned.. Keep cutting benefits and make those alcoholics, drug addicts and those that queue outside Sutton Road to draw out benefits at midnight get off their lazy stagnant backsides.
Because there are not enough 1 or 2 bedroom council owned flats to house them the Tory 'bedroom tax' will drive the elderly and vulnerable into the hands of people like this.
predator 107
says...
12:56pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Beth the original one
says...
1:00pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Beth the original one
says...
1:04pm Mon 18 Mar 13
predator 107 wrote:i totally agree, over the back to me is a housing estate that is less than 10 yrs old, yet to look at it you would think it was a london slum, rubbish piled high in the gardens, broken and filthy windows, torn curtains, it is disgusting yet all these houses were brand spanking new, 10 years ago, all with new kitchens, bathrooms and double glazing. People make slums, slums dont just appear, i cant understand why people wont take pride in the house they live in, even if they pay rent and its not theirs, they live in it and its their home
The tenants have a choice whether to accept a property or not. They are not forced. If they accept then they should have pride in their home, stop expecting everyone else to spoon feed them. Yes, tenants are partly to blame... Clean your own damned home. Structural issues, yes the Landlord, however cleanliness and pride is the tenants responsibility.
troopdogg
says...
1:07pm Mon 18 Mar 13
maxell
says...
1:41pm Mon 18 Mar 13
SpeekinMyBranes
says...
1:51pm Mon 18 Mar 13
j-w wrote:There are not enough 'smaller council properties' for people to move to you moron. So people will be forced to rent in the public sector at much higher rents. That will increase the housing benefit bill.
Or move to a smaller council property.
Typical tory policy. Screwing the poor weak and infirm to pay the rich.
notinwestcliffanymore
says...
2:23pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Beth the original one
says...
2:33pm Mon 18 Mar 13
notinwestcliffanymorthere are loads of flats built for housing associations, its just an excuse people are throwing up, to stay in a property that is too big for them. Just the same as they say there are no jobs out there, what they actually mean is there are no jobs out there they are willing to get off their backsides for.
e wrote:
How can there not be enough smaller properties, all that has been built in last 10 years seems to be flats.
j-w
says...
2:54pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Soouthchurch59
says...
3:01pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Beth the original one wrote:In the meantime.... The people occupying these smaller properties are meant to go where?
notinwestcliffanymorthere are loads of flats built for housing associations, its just an excuse people are throwing up, to stay in a property that is too big for them. Just the same as they say there are no jobs out there, what they actually mean is there are no jobs out there they are willing to get off their backsides for.
e wrote:
How can there not be enough smaller properties, all that has been built in last 10 years seems to be flats.
notinwestcliffanymore
says...
3:12pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Soouthchurch59 wrote:well if they have familes and are living in properties that are too cramped for them it doesn t take a genius to work out does it..
Beth the original one wrote:In the meantime.... The people occupying these smaller properties are meant to go where?notinwestcliffanymor e wrote: How can there not be enough smaller properties, all that has been built in last 10 years seems to be flats.there are loads of flats built for housing associations, its just an excuse people are throwing up, to stay in a property that is too big for them. Just the same as they say there are no jobs out there, what they actually mean is there are no jobs out there they are willing to get off their backsides for.
.
as long as they are working tax payers of course.
hoppie
says...
3:14pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Mould and damp in bedroom where does the moisture come from.
Tenants at fault.
Loose carpets yes dangerous landlord at fault.
Bedsits are one room usually closed up all the time so mould and damp can be expected.
Beth the original one
says...
3:17pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Soouthchurch59
says...
3:21pm Mon 18 Mar 13
notinwestcliffanymorIf that's your answer; I'm not sure you understood the question.
e wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote:well if they have familes and are living in properties that are too cramped for them it doesn t take a genius to work out does it..
Beth the original one wrote:In the meantime.... The people occupying these smaller properties are meant to go where?notinwestcliffanymor e wrote: How can there not be enough smaller properties, all that has been built in last 10 years seems to be flats.there are loads of flats built for housing associations, its just an excuse people are throwing up, to stay in a property that is too big for them. Just the same as they say there are no jobs out there, what they actually mean is there are no jobs out there they are willing to get off their backsides for.
.
as long as they are working tax payers of course.
Sean4u
says...
4:09pm Mon 18 Mar 13
The reason why we have housing benefits is to maintain our BTL entrepreneurs. They are the ultimate spongers of the system - tenants are just the lever that opens the public purse.
John T Pharro
says...
4:11pm Mon 18 Mar 13
SpeekinMyBranes
says...
5:42pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Sean4u wrote:Same should go for our pig MPs. Buy back the GLC townhall in London and make it into dormitories for MPs who need to stay overnight in London. Stop giving those greedy b@stards second houses and flats at taxpayers expense.
I think public funds should never be used to pay whole-dwelling rent, our welfare estate should put the safety net at room-only catered accommodation in large hostels who employ catering and cleaning staff. That way there'd be no slum rents unless they were paid for from savings or income (personal choice - not public concern), plenty of cleaning and catering employment, and a greater incentive to earn enough for a family home.
The reason why we have housing benefits is to maintain our BTL entrepreneurs. They are the ultimate spongers of the system - tenants are just the lever that opens the public purse.
eddicaine
says...
6:03pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Soouthchurch59
says...
6:40pm Mon 18 Mar 13
eddicaine wrote:Yes. A start would be to apportion fines by taking account of a defendants personal wealth.
How many more times is this landlord going to be taken to court. He is not fit to be licensed as a landlord
Pang, is a multimillionaire!
southendresident99
says...
9:53pm Mon 18 Mar 13
I know the Pangs well, they work extremely hard to maintain the property and as reader pointed out, the tenants are a large factor in the condition of the property.
The council do understand the challenges and it was harsh to fine the Pangs. Perhaps the taxpayer would like to pay a lot for more to house these tenants in luxurious accommodation? I bet not.
southendresident99
says...
10:25pm Mon 18 Mar 13
eddicaine wrote:How many speeding tickets have been generated from speed cameras ? Perhaps all the offenders are not fit to have a driving licenses.
How many more times is this landlord going to be taken to court. He is not fit to be licensed as a landlord
I suspect if people knew about the circumstances they would see the valuable public service being provided.
notinwestcliffanymore
says...
7:09am Tue 19 Mar 13
southendresident99 wrote:Quite right, i suspect pang is catering for the very bottom rung of society, those who favorite past time is chasing dragons, those that no-one else wants those that spend the housing benefits on cheap beer. would anyone here put them up in their spare rooms..
eddicaine wrote: How many more times is this landlord going to be taken to court. He is not fit to be licensed as a landlordHow many speeding tickets have been generated from speed cameras ? Perhaps all the offenders are not fit to have a driving licenses. I suspect if people knew about the circumstances they would see the valuable public service being provided.
Soouthchurch59
says...
8:15am Tue 19 Mar 13
And that gives him the right to swerve the rules and regulations that everyone else has to abide by does it?
In my opinion, the above should mean that he's monitored even more closely!
Beth the original one
says...
1:08pm Tue 19 Mar 13
Soouthchurch59 wrote:no that doesnt give him the right to swerve all the rules and regs, however you nicely swerved the question of whether you would house the dregs of society who have no desire to keep where they are living nice and respectable and actually seem to go out of their way to turn it into a hovel, choosing to spend their money on drink and drugs and expect everyone else to provide them with a living. In answer to that question, my answer is no i wouldnt want that type of scum anywhere near me or my home. My mum used to be a landlady, and please note the past tense, after her last experience she did the house back up and sold it, not bad being as house had only had a new kitchen and bathroom six months prior and then had to have another new bathroom and kitchen because of scummy tenants. To be a landlord/lady is not somewhere i ever want to be, as too many tenants dont give a d@mn about where they live
'pang is catering for the very bottom rung of society'
And that gives him the right to swerve the rules and regulations that everyone else has to abide by does it?
In my opinion, the above should mean that he's monitored even more closely!
elaen
says...
1:50pm Tue 19 Mar 13
elaen
says...
1:54pm Tue 19 Mar 13
stopmoaning1
says...
5:42pm Tue 19 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:There is of course no such thing as 'bedroom tax'
Because there are not enough 1 or 2 bedroom council owned flats to house them the Tory 'bedroom tax' will drive the elderly and vulnerable into the hands of people like this.
stopmoaning1
says...
5:45pm Tue 19 Mar 13
No excuses.
notinwestcliffanymore
says...
7:11am Wed 20 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:yeah its the same as road tax....
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Because there are not enough 1 or 2 bedroom council owned flats to house them the Tory 'bedroom tax' will drive the elderly and vulnerable into the hands of people like this.There is of course no such thing as 'bedroom tax'
Red Under Your Bed
says...
3:37pm Wed 20 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Too right mate. They're happy to tax people for having extra rooms, but they won't tax mansions, and they'll give £100,000 tax breaks to millionaires.
Because there are not enough 1 or 2 bedroom council owned flats to house them the Tory 'bedroom tax' will drive the elderly and vulnerable into the hands of people like this.
Tory c*nts.
Nebs
says...
9:53pm Wed 20 Mar 13
Red Under Your Bed wrote:What £100,000 tax breaks? Labour were in power from May 1997 to May 2010, thirteen years. In that period the top rate of tax was 40 percent for 12 years and 10 months, and then they jacked it up to 50 percent just before the election. An average of 40.2 percent over their 13 years. Labour is the party of low taxation, and they moan when someone else reduces taxes to the same rate that they were happy with for 12 years and 10 months.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Too right mate. They're happy to tax people for having extra rooms, but they won't tax mansions, and they'll give £100,000 tax breaks to millionaires.
Because there are not enough 1 or 2 bedroom council owned flats to house them the Tory 'bedroom tax' will drive the elderly and vulnerable into the hands of people like this.
Tory c*nts.
asbo in a coma
says...
10:00pm Wed 20 Mar 13
notinwestcliffanymore
says...
9:27am Thu 21 Mar 13
Red Under Your Bed wrote:the difference being those mansion owners have already paid stamp duty with own money,, the social houses with spare bed rooms pay a peppercorn rent subsidised by the tax payer.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Because there are not enough 1 or 2 bedroom council owned flats to house them the Tory 'bedroom tax' will drive the elderly and vulnerable into the hands of people like this.Too right mate. They're happy to tax people for having extra rooms, but they won't tax mansions, and they'll give £100,000 tax breaks to millionaires. Tory c*nts.
stopmoaning1
says...
10:55am Thu 21 Mar 13
Red Under Your Bed wrote:There is of course no such thing as bedroom tax. People do not have to pay an extra tax for having extra rooms.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Too right mate. They're happy to tax people for having extra rooms, but they won't tax mansions, and they'll give £100,000 tax breaks to millionaires.
Because there are not enough 1 or 2 bedroom council owned flats to house them the Tory 'bedroom tax' will drive the elderly and vulnerable into the hands of people like this.
Tory c*nts.
But why let a simple thing like facts get in the way of a good rant.
Pikey-Biker
says...
1:30am Sat 23 Mar 13
heartbeat wrote:consider moving?
j-w wrote:Rather difficult if they
Or move to a smaller council property.
a) don't have enough money to pay up
and
b) the council don't have a smaller property to offer them!
Pikey-Biker
says...
1:35am Sat 23 Mar 13
SpeekinMyBranes wrote:you mean screwing the lazy scroungers to repay the taxpayer (a person that goes out to work and makes a contribution to the government coffers to pay for benefits)
j-w wrote:There are not enough 'smaller council properties' for people to move to you moron. So people will be forced to rent in the public sector at much higher rents. That will increase the housing benefit bill.
Or move to a smaller council property.
Typical tory policy. Screwing the poor weak and infirm to pay the rich.
Pikey-Biker
says...
1:36am Sat 23 Mar 13
notinwestcliffanymorflats will do, its a home
e wrote:
How can there not be enough smaller properties, all that has been built in last 10 years seems to be flats.
DogsMessInLeigh says...
10:30am Mon 18 Mar 13