A former head of the government’s housing checking unit has said he was “unaware” that his surveyors notified contractors ahead of inspections at Wang Fuk Court, the site of Hong Kong’s deadliest fire in decades.

Rudolf Lau, who headed the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit (ICU) when the tragedy struck, testified on Friday, the 24th day of hearings into the cause of the massive blaze.

Just two days earlier, Andy Ku, a senior ICU maintenance surveyor, told the independent committee investigating the fire that the unit had alerted the renovation consultant ahead of site checks before the Tai Po housing estate went up in flames in November.

Victor Dawes, lead counsel for the committee, had previously said that the inspection unit’s alerts may have tipped off the construction firm and given it opportunities to conceal wrongdoing.

Lau, who retired in February, was asked by Jason Yu, counsel for the committee, on Friday whether he was aware of the advance notices, local media reported. Lau replied that he was “unaware” of the practice.

‘By the book’

Yu also grilled Lau on the ICU’s regulatory role, asking the reason for the unit’s oversights. Lau said the unit’s monitoring regime for minor works relied on contractors and consultants to self-regulate, as well as on complaints from residents.

Yu challenged him, saying that unscrupulous individuals responsible for the maintenance works would not report themselves.

“Did the ICU leave the responsibility for inspection to residents?” Yu asked, noting that an average resident would not have been able to spot irregularities such as illegally altered windows and fire escape openings.

Lau admitted there were blind spots in the unit’s regulatory regime but said it had reviewed its system since the Wang Fuk Court fire by conducting unannounced inspections.

The former ICU head was also questioned about an inspection requirement that the unit was not made aware of until after the fire. Asked whether the ICU operated only “by the book,” blindly following Buildings Department (BD) protocols, Lau answered in the affirmative.

“The [BD] manual did not require on-site safety inspections, so we did not do them,” he said.

Wrapping up Friday’s hearing, committee chair David Lok said the government’s cross-departmental investigation report will be published on the committee’s website by May 15. The next round of hearings will continue after mid-June, he added.

A maintenance project at the fire-hit Wang Fuk Court should have been classified as high risk, but was instead categorised as minor works requiring no regular inspections, a government surveyor has told a public inquiry.

Nick Yung, a senior maintenance surveyor at the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit (ICU), gave his testimony before an independent committee investigating the massive blaze at the Tai Po housing estate on Thursday.

He was the second ICU official questioned by Victor Dawes, lead counsel for the committee, after senior maintenance surveyor Andy Ku on Wednesday.

Yung said that the maintenance project on the outer walls of all eight buildings at Wang Fuk Court was classified as low risk for the convenience of homeowners, which created a “loophole” in safety regulation, local media reported.

The surveyor said the renovation project should have been considered high risk, as it involved work on the entire outer wall of each building. However, because it was classified as minor works, it did not warrant regular inspections.

The ICU only conducts inspections when complaints are received, Yung added.

Extensive repairs on the exterior of the Tai Po estate were under way when the fire broke out in late November, ripping through seven of its eight buildings. The blaze, which killed 168 people and displaced thousands of residents, was the city’s deadliest fire since 1948.

Combustible wooden boards

During previous hearings, the committee heard that the removal and replacement of fireproof stairwell windows and fire escape doors with combustible wooden boards may have breached fire safety rules and allowed smoke to enter and spread rapidly in the building.

But Yung told the inquiry on Thursday that he had mistaken the wooden boards for a protective measure to cover damaged windows.

That prompted Dawes to point out that windows on every fifth floor were replaced and asked why Yung did not find it suspicious that so many windows had been damaged.

The surveyor replied that not all the windows had been removed.

Yung said that the ICU relied on the contractors to self-regulate and admitted that the unit’s review mechanism was “very problematic.”

Dawes said, “If even professionals fail to detect these safety issues, how can you expect residents to notice that there are problems? How could an ordinary person know that this is such a serious issue?”

Yung said the openings were not clear in photos but admitted they would have been visible if seen directly on site. Dawes responded: “Exactly, but you didn’t go down there yourselves.”

The surveyor also told the committee that it was only in January – more than a month after the fire – that the ICU was notified by the Buildings Department of “a new policy,” which came into effect in 2023, requiring random inspections of 20 per cent of minor works.

The ICU would have followed up if it had been aware of the arrangement, Yung said.

“It feels to us as though you are shirking responsibility,” said Judge David Lok, who chairs the committee.

Yung denied Lok’s contention, saying he only meant that the ICU would have had the opportunity to conduct inspections if it had been aware of the new policy.

A senior surveyor at a government inspection unit has admitted alerting the renovation consultant ahead of site checks at Wang Fuk Court before the estate went up in flames, a public inquiry has heard.

Victor Dawes, lead counsel to the independent committee investigating the fatal fire, questioned Andy Ku, a senior maintenance surveyor at the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit (ICU), on Wednesday.

Dawes presented to the committee Ku’s written witness statement, in which the senior surveyor said that the ICU had “no particular role in reviewing or confirming the quality, reliability, and integrity of consultants.”

The committee earlier heard in March that one of the directors of Will Power Architects, the consultancy firm overseeing the large-scale maintenance work at the Tai Po housing estate, had not carried out his duties as a “registered inspector” (RI).

“The RI’s work, in effect, is to act as a regulator. If it’s not up to you to keep them in check, who else would it be?” Dawes asked Ku.

Ku replied that the oversight system is essentially “self-regulating” and that the ICU does not have a formal auditing system.

The committee also heard on Wednesday that for most of its inspections, the ICU had notified a Will Power employee, who was also a representative for the RI. The inspector himself was not there for most of the ICU checks.

Dawes remarked that the ICU’s inspection practice deviated from the norm with other government departments, such as the Labour Department and Buildings Department.

The lead counsel also told the hearing that the ICU had conducted a total of 10 inspections at Wang Fuk Court, of which only two were held without advance notice. One of those two inspections was an impromptu check, which Ku conducted himself after a medical appointment in the same district.

“If you didn’t have a medical appointment in Tai Po that day, there wouldn’t have been an inspection?” Dawes asked. Ku agreed.

Dawes then showed the committee screenshots of ICU maintenance surveyor Amanda Lau’s text conversations scheduling an inspection with the RI representative, who then alerted the contractor, Prestige Construction & Engineering. Ku confirmed that Lau acted on his orders.

After the fire, the ICU began conducting inspections without advance notice, Ku said.

Dawes asked if the new arrangements meant that the ICU realised there were issues with its old system. Ku replied: “There was room for improvement.”

Scaffolding nets, foam boards

Ku was also grilled on his unit’s oversight of scaffolding nets and foam boards, which a preliminary investigation has blamed for contributing to the spread of the blaze.

The lead counsel brought up the ICU’s checks on the fire retardancy of scaffolding nets used at Wang Fuk Court.

He asked Ku why he told the Buildings Department the nets were up to standard, despite the ICU’s own test showing the nets continued to burn for more than 10 seconds before the flame was extinguished.

Ku said that upon two retrials of the same piece of netting, the net did not catch fire.

Dawes showed a fire retardancy certificate to the committee and asked Ku whether the ICU could verify the legitimacy of the certificate and whether it really corresponded to the same lot of scaffold nets.

Ku said the unit could not verify, as it relied on the contractor’s word.

Despite residents’ complaints, the senior surveyor told the hearing that he did not notice the estate’s windows were covered with foam boards during an ICU inspection in September because scaffolding nets were in the way.

A month later, the contractor and the inspector told Ku that only three floors would have windows covered with foam boards whenever spalling works were carried out.

Ku said he did not ask to see a fire retardancy certificate for the foam boards as he believed the phased arrangement would mitigate fire risks. “There was no basis to ask for a certificate,” he said.

Dawes scrolled through about a dozen photos from the site, most of which showed windows covered with foam boards in clear view. The photos were part of a slideshow report that Ku had previously seen.

Dawes questioned how Ku could have been unaware of the foam boards, to which the government surveyor said he was “focused on the concrete works.”

Ku added that in retrospect, he “had been lied to” and that he did not follow up on the matter because there were no further complaints from residents.