Window blocking ‘inappropriate’ but outside building authority’s remit, Tai Po probe told

This story has been made freely available as a public service to our readers. Please consider supporting SCMP’s journalism by subscribing.An independent committee investigating Hong Kong’s deadly Tai Po fire examined the roles of building and home affairs authorities on the 20th day of evidential hearings.Four witnesses from the Buildings Department and the Home Affairs Department testified before the judge-led panel on Monday.Cheung Yuk-ching, an assistant director of the Buildings Department who oversaw the mandatory building inspection scheme, said the department could take action against contractors over any “inappropriate” use of styrofoam boards but did not do so in the Wang Fuk Court case because the estate did not fall under its purview.Franko Tse Kam-ming, a retired senior surveyor with the Buildings Department who was seconded to the Independent Checking Unit (ICU) from April 2023 to July 2025, rebutted a unit officer’s claims that there were no regulations over the use of foam materials, adding that no one had consulted him on whether regulations applied to the use of polyfoam boards.Two other witnesses, Or Wai-yin, a liaison officer at the Tai Po District Office of the Home Affairs Department, and Eunice Chan Hau-man, the chairwoman of the district office at the time of the fire, were questioned about proxy votes collected by district councillor Peggy Wong to decide on estate affairs.Chan was moved to another post shortly after she was widely criticised for her choice of attire at the funeral of firefighter Ho Wai-ho, who died in the blaze.The South China Morning Post earlier reported that there had been multiple complaints about Chan’s abrasive management approach and reluctance to consider community feedback, among others.The inferno broke out on November 26 last year when the eight-block housing estate was undergoing renovations. The disaster claimed 168 lives and displaced nearly 5,000 residents.On the previous day of the hearing, Director of Fire Services Andy Yeung Yan-kin reversed his subordinates’ accounts that fire hazards involving construction materials or processes did not fall under his department’s purview, saying it had a role in regulating such matters.He agreed with committee lead counsel Victor Dawes that an issue might fall within the jurisdiction of more than one government department, and that it would be insufficient for the department to simply refer complaints to one another; instead, they should work more closely.Dawes identified the use of combustible polyfoam boards to cover windows of flats, the adoption of allegedly non-fire-retardant scaffolding mesh, and workers’ smoking habits as “human factors” that contributed to the blaze’s heavy toll.The committee previously heard that residents had complained about such fire risks to the government, but several departments – including fire services, the Buildings Department and the Labour Department – referred the complaints to one another, believing the matters did not fall within their purview.Follow our live updates as the hearing continues.More of our coverage: