The Buildings Department (BD) did not conduct flammability tests on the scaffold nets covering Wang Fuk Court before the housing estate was struck by a deadly fire last year, an official has told a public inquiry into the blaze.

The BD’s assistant director for mandatory building inspection, Karen Cheung, testified on Monday that her department “mainly” relied on fire retardancy certificates submitted by contractors and did not conduct on-site or laboratory tests, local media reported.

“In terms of scaffolding nets, we really had not conducted tests before,” Cheung said.

In response to questions from Victor Dawes, lead counsel for the inquiry, she said that the department would check where the certificates originated and whether they were recognised in Hong Kong.

Substandard scaffolding nets have been identified as one of the key factors contributing to the rapid spread of the fire in November. In the wake of the blaze, the authorities imposed lab testing requirements before the nets can be used on worksites.

Wang Fuk Court was undergoing major renovation when the fire broke out, killing 168 people and displacing thousands.

The independent committee tasked with investigating the blaze earlier heard that residents lodged complaints about possible fire hazards to authorities before the tragedy struck.

The complaints involved wooden boards installed to replace fireproof windows at emergency staircases so workers could access bamboo scaffolding, foam boards used to shield windows from falling debris, non-flame-retardant scaffold nets, and workers smoking.

Cheung also confirmed that both the registered inspector and the contractor were responsible for submitting certificates and laboratory reports to ensure the nets meet flame-retardancy standards.

Purviews

The Building (Construction) Regulation empowers the BD to take action against works that cover windows with opaque materials, including foam boards, for long periods, the official also said, but government housing complexes like Wang Fuk Court are outside its purview.

As a government-subsidised housing complex, Wang Fuk Court fell under the remit of the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit (ICU), Cheung told the hearing.

However, senior ICU surveyor Andy Ku said in a written submission presented at a hearing last week that the unit had no power to regulate “temporary construction materials.”

At the same hearing last week, Michael Yung, assistant director of fire safety at the Fire Services Department, said that fire hazards such as substandard scaffold netting, flammable foam boards, and workers smoking on site fell outside the FSD’s purview.

Under a secondment mechanism to ensure consistency, the BD can send senior staff to the ICU to assist with inspections, according to a document shown at Monday’s hearing.

But Cheung told Dawes that the BD did not conduct any inspections on Prestige Construction & Engineering Company, the maintenance contractor at Wang Fuk Court, and Will Power Architects, the consultancy firm overseeing the works at the estate.

Fire hazards like substandard scaffold netting, flammable foam boards and workers smoking on site fell outside the purview of the Fire Services Department (FSD), a senior official has told a public inquiry into the deadly Tai Po blaze.

Michael Yung, assistant director of fire safety at the FSD, testified on Wednesday that his department is responsible only for “active” fire safety measures, such as alarm systems, local media reported.

Meanwhile, “passive” protections like fire doors and windows are managed by the Buildings Department, he added.

Yung was among the highest-ranking FSD officials to testify before the independent committee investigating the massive Wang Fuk Court blaze in November, which killed 168 people. The housing estate in Tai Po was undergoing major renovation when the fire hit.

The committee previously heard residents lodged numerous complaints of possible fire hazards to multiple government departments, including the FSD, before the fire broke out.

The complaints included wooden boards installed in emergency staircases to replace fireproof windows, allowing workers access to scaffolding; foam boards used to shield windows from falling debris; non-retardant scaffold nets; and workers smoking.

Yung said that wooden boards, foam boards, and scaffold nets were under the remit of the Buildings Department and its Independent Checking Unit (ICU), while the issue of workers smoking should have been handled by the Labour Department.

“It appears that none of the fire hazards concerning residents was your department’s responsibility?” Victor Dawes, the lead lawyer for the committee, asked in Cantonese, to which Yung agreed.

‘No expertise’ in construction

Citing an initial investigation, Dawes said last month that the blaze was “most likely” caused by smoking, while flammable construction materials may have contributed to the rapid spread of fire and smoke.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Dawes drew attention to the city’s Fire Services Ordinance, which stipulates that the FSD should “give advice on fire protection measures and fire hazards as occasion requires.”

Yung agreed that the FSD should advise residents on passive fire safety measures, but maintained that his department was not the most suitable government agency to handle complaints regarding flammable construction materials.

“We do not have the expertise. If we hastily order the removal of such materials, it may obstruct the construction work,” he said.

‘Oversight vacuum’

Email correspondence between residents and the FSD showed that officers urged residents to contact the ICU regarding the issue of foam boards.

Judge David Lok, the chair of the independent committee, said the blaze exposed a “grey zone” in government oversight of building renovations, to which Yung agreed.

Yung admitted that the FSD could have improved its handling of complaints. Following the blaze, the FSD will refer residents’ enquiries or complaints to the responsible departments if they consent, he said.

The official also said that the FSD and the Buildings Department had begun discussions on how to improve interdepartmental referrals.

However, he disagreed with Dawes’ characterisation of an “oversight vacuum” regarding foam boards, after the lawyer cited the written submission by senior ICU surveyor Andy Ku, who said the unit had no power to regulate “temporary construction materials.”

Yung said the matter should be under the ICU’s purview, but declined to comment further.

He said the jurisdictions of different government departments are based on laws and “long-term cooperation, discussion, and perceptions” among the public bodies.

Committee member Chan Kin-por asked whether a mechanism exists for when the ICU could not handle a complaint forwarded by the FSD.

In response, Yung said the FSD’s deputy director would lead an interdepartmental effort to handle such a situation in the future.