Residents passed from pillar to post as warnings before fatal Hong Kong fire went unheeded

Complaint case 1 Smoking July 22 Labour Department conducts site checks but does not find anyone smoking No further action is taken. Part 3: Accountability By Matthew Cheng Matthew ChengReporter, City, Leopold ChenLeopold ChenReporter, Hong Kong, Davies Christian SuryaDavies Christian SuryaInfographic Designer and KaKuen LauKaKuen LauInfographic Designer May 6, 2026 The third round of evidential hearings by a judge-led independent committee investigating the deadly inferno at Hong Kong’s Wang Fuk Court heard various government departments say regulatory oversight lay elsewhere. The sessions, held from April 20 to 30, revealed a “regulatory vacuum” in several key areas that contributed to the high number of deaths, including the use of flammable polyfoam boards to cover windows during renovation work. Months before the fire engulfed the Tai Po estate, numerous residents had filed complaints about the HK$336 million renovation project that played a key role in the rapid spread of the fire. They repeatedly voiced concerns to various government departments about workers smoking on site and the quality of building materials, among others, only to be told they were talking to the wrong person.Complaint case 2Polyfoam boards and scaffolding mesh October 3 1823 assigns the complaint to the Mandatory Building Inspection Division under the Buildings Department. October 23 Labour Department conducts an on-site inspection at Wang Fuk Court to check on bamboo scaffolding breaches and identifies some prosecutable violations. The department issues improvement notices to the contractor and subcontractor, but leaves complaints about polyfoam boards, smoking and dust to the ICU. The ICU takes no action over foam boards, citing an alleged lack of regulations. ‘Not our job’ Residents repeatedly complained about potential fire risks and alleged malpractice at owners’ corporation meetings, but various government departments said the responsibility did not lie with them, and these warnings in the lead-up to the deadly blaze were ignored.1. Use of polyfoam boards to block windows The renovation contractor's use of non-fire-retardant polyfoam boards to protect windows contributed to the blaze’s rapid spread, a practice that violated the Buildings (Construction) Regulation. The law required appropriate construction methods, procedures and precautionary measures for building works. However, there was a “regulatory vacuum” in the case of Wang Fuk Court. The Fire Services Department, the Labour Department and the Buildings Department contended that it did not fall under their purview, suggesting that the Independent Checking Unit of the Housing Bureau (ICU) was responsible for enforcement. But the ICU said it could not enforce the regulations as the polyfoam boards were installed temporarily. 2. Use of combustible scaffolding mesh The use of substandard non-fire-retardant nets on scaffolding on the eight blocks of Wang Fuk Court also contributed to the spread of the fire. The Buildings Department sets out fire-retardant standards for scaffolding safety nets. The Labour Department’s Code of Practice for Bamboo Scaffolding Safety also incorporates such standards. Both the Fire Services Department and the Labour Department suggested that the fire-retardancy of scaffolding nets was under the purview of the Buildings Department. But the latter lacked a mechanism to verify the certificates or test the nets’ fire-retardancy. 3. Removal of fireproof windows from emergency passages Fireproof windows at emergency staircases of Wang Fuk Court were replaced with wooden boards to allow workers access to scaffolding, contributing to the spread of thick smoke. Such openings violated the Buildings (Construction) Regulation, which mandates appropriate construction methods, procedures and precautionary measures for building works. But the Labour Department suggested that such exits complied with occupational safety protocols, as they facilitated entry and exit from scaffolding for workers, who were not allowed to climb on it. 4. Workers’ smoking habits The “likely cause” of the tragedy was lit cigarettes that ignited nearby carton boxes at Wang Cheong House, while authorities ignored repeated complaints of renovation workers’ smoking habits. The Labour Department once referred a smoking-related complaint to the Fire Services Department, which replied that the matter fell outside its purview. 5. Proxy votes In 2024, Wang Fuk Court residents awarded the HK$336 million (US$42.9 million) renovation contract to Prestige Construction and Engineering Company, despite it being the priciest among 57 contractors. A total of 570 votes were cast at the general meeting, although only 293 residents showed up. Some residents complained about an abuse of proxy votes, saying “a pile of ballots” was put in the ballot box and that there was a lack of verification. Fire Services Department’s purview under scrutiny The Fire Services Department faced scrutiny over its handling of potential fire risks at Wang Fuk Court. Under current practice, the department classifies fire safety provisions into active and passive categories, while all residents’ complaints related to passive provisions fall outside the department’s purview.FSD’s U-turn on fire hazards regulation duty Fire Services Department officials initially denied that they had a role in regulating fire risks related to the construction project, saying that building authorities should handle it. But the department’s chief eventually reversed the account of his subordinates, accepting “ultimate responsibility" for fire safety.The South China Morning Post has covered the second round of public hearings from April 20 to 30. Follow our reports to catch up with the latest developments.