Conflicting accounts emerged at the Wang Fuk Court fire hearing over whether a shutdown notice for the estate’s fire safety system had been requested, with the property management company insisting no such request was received.
Lam Man-yan, a technical officer at ISS EastPoint Properties Limited, testified that he was unfamiliar with the shutdown notice and had delegated all related responsibilities to the fire service contractor after joining the company.
He confirmed that he had called Chung Kit-man, director of Victory Fire Engineering, on Nov 26, 2025, to request the Certificate of Fire Service Installation and Equipment (FS251). While he was informed that the water tanks had been emptied, Lam said Chung had never mentioned that the electricity supply had been cut.
However, Lam acknowledged that Chung had asked him for a shutdown notice at the time, which he was unable to provide.
Cheng Tsz-ying, a property officer at ISS who joined the company in August 2014, denied receiving any requests from Victory Fire Engineering for a shutdown notice.
Although Cheng confirmed she had spoken with Chung by phone last October, she said she could not recall the details of the conversation and did not believe it involved the document or the condition of the water tanks.
She maintained that Chung had never requested the notice from her between October and November.
Cheng also rejected Chung’s claim that he had called her on Nov 21, 2025—days before the fire—to request the shutdown notice. Phone records showed the call was marked as “missed,” with a duration of just nine seconds.
During cross-examination, Cheng said she had never received any shutdown notice from Victory Fire. She added that a colleague surnamed Lok had received a related document from the renovation contractor, Prestige Construction and Engineering Company, in a group chat that she was not part of.
Although Cheng recalled seeing the notice, she said it had been issued by Prestige Construction and Engineering, not ISS.
Cheng told the inquiry she only became aware that the fire alarm system had been disabled on the day of the fire, when she asked a security guard to break a glass panel in an attempt to trigger the alarm.
Her testimony suggested there was no record of when the system had been switched off, no related complaint logs, and no follow-up action. She also said the shutdown notice was only requested by Chung after the fire.
Victor Dawes, lead counsel to the inquiry, said the evidence suggested the two contractors had not been working in coordination on the fire safety system, a point Cheng agreed with.
The inquiry also heard that residents had repeatedly complained about workers smoking on-site between July 2024 and February 2025.
However, records showed the complaints were merely “notified to Victory Fire,” with no further enforcement action taken.
Following a meeting in March, the owners’ corporation had given Victory Fire one month to address the issue, including setting up designated smoking areas and imposing penalties. Cheng admitted that smoking continued and that ISS took no further action.
"We can't control the workers, and there's no way for us to fire them," Cheng said, adding that Victory Fire had indicated smokers would be dismissed, but she was unaware whether any such action had been taken.
Cheng also addressed concerns over movable wooden panels installed during renovation works, which allowed thick smoke from scaffolding to enter the staircase after the fire broke out. She said management had relied on the project consultant, Will Power Architects, to assess the risks.
She agreed that worker smoking and the accumulation of rubbish posed fire hazards, and that ISS should bear independent responsibility.
The hearing will resume after the Easter holiday, with the next session scheduled for next Wednesday, April 8.
