Residents’ warnings on foam panel risks spotlighted in Wang Fuk Court fire hearing

Concerns over potentially flammable foam panels installed at Tai Po’s Wang Fuk Court took center stage on Friday, as the independent committee investigating the fatal fire heard that repeated resident complaints may not have been properly addressed by authorities.

On the second day of public hearings, the committee's senior counsel, Victor Dawes, outlined how residents had raised concerns months before the blaze, reporting that foam boards used to seal windows could be easily ignited.

One resident had lodged a complaint through the government hotline in September 2024, warning of fire risks after informal testing.

According to testimony presented at the hearing, then Assistant Director of Fire Services Michael Yung Kam-hung said officers inspected the estate shortly after receiving the complaint and confirmed the presence of foam panels. However, they concluded the issue did not fall within their jurisdiction and informed the complainant accordingly. The same position was reportedly maintained when members of the owners’ corporation later sought further inspection.

The committee heard that this stance has since been called into question. It was argued that under existing fire safety legislation, authorities may have had a responsibility to provide advice on potential fire hazards, even if the materials themselves were not directly regulated.

The hearing also examined the role of the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit (ICU), which had reportedly assessed the foam panels as temporary protective materials not subject to statutory fire-resistance requirements. Officials from the unit had indicated that covering windows with such materials did not constitute building works requiring approval.

However, this interpretation was challenged during proceedings. Evidence presented suggested that the foam panels had remained in place for more than a year, raising doubts over whether they could still be considered temporary. Questions were also raised over whether the unit had adequately verified claims that the materials used were flame-retardant.

Testimony further revealed discrepancies between officials. A building consultant previously associated with the ICU stated he had no recollection of being consulted on the matter, contradicting earlier claims that his advice had supported the use of foam panels. He also emphasized that, given past international fire incidents involving combustible materials, he would not have endorsed such applications without caution.

The hearing was told that no documented records of consultation or technical verification appeared to exist, including any testing or certification of the materials in question. It was suggested that even basic checks, such as simple ignition tests, were not carried out.

The committee will continue to examine whether the relevant departments had correctly interpreted and enforced existing regulations, and whether lapses in oversight contributed to the conditions that led to the fire.