Architects Told Residents Contractor Had Clean Record Before Deadly Fire
Documents show homeowners were reassured that the firm blamed for Hong Kong’s worst recent residential blaze had no safety blemishes. The disclosure deepens public anger as manslaughter and anti corruption investigations probe how warnings, penalties and disputes failed to prevent catastrophe.
Homeowners at the Wang Fuk Court complex in Tai Po were told that the contractor later implicated in a devastating fire had a clean safety record, documents viewed by Reuters show, a representation that has since come under intense scrutiny as investigators seek to piece together what went wrong. The blaze on December 6 killed many residents and left others missing, touching off manslaughter and anti corruption investigations and a broader examination of enforcement and oversight across the city.
The assurances were made by Will Power Architects, a consultant retained by the building’s homeowners corporation to evaluate bids for a renovation contract. In truth the contractor, Prestige Construction and Engineering Co., had been penalised by the city’s safety regulator more than a dozen times in the seven years before it won the job. The penalties included fines for improperly installed scaffolding and faulty electrical connections, details that were not reflected in the guidance given to residents as they considered the renovation plan.
Evidence and testimony presented to investigators have described a long running dispute between homeowners and the contractor over cost overruns, mounting safety concerns and the use of materials that were later criticised as potentially flammable. New boards and resident oversight efforts sought to scrutinise the project, but lawyers advised that cancelling the contract could expose the homeowners corporation to legal liability, according to the materials reviewed by Reuters. That advice helped keep the project going even as tensions between the parties increased.
As probes continued, several individuals have been arrested, including people connected to the contractor and to the consultant firm that advised residents. Authorities have signalled they are investigating both the direct causes of the fire and possible misconduct in the procurement and oversight process. The presence of a record of repeated safety penalties for the contractor raises questions about how information was assessed by the homeowners corporation and its advisers, and whether regulators could have acted sooner.
The tragedy has provoked a wave of public anger and renewed calls for stricter enforcement of building and renovation standards in Hong Kong. For many residents, the case underscores a fragile trust in the systems meant to ensure safety in aging apartment complexes where renovation projects have become common and often complex undertakings. The combination of commercial disputes, regulatory penalties and legal caution by resident leaders created a situation in which safety warnings were not effectively translated into preventive action.
Legal experts and community groups are likely to press for clearer responsibilities for consultants and for more transparent disclosure of contractors’ regulatory histories. The investigations now under way will test the capacity of Hong Kong’s institutions to hold individuals and entities accountable and to reassure a public shaken by the scale of the loss. As arrests and inquiries proceed, families and neighbours will be watching closely for answers about how preventable lapses and contested decisions culminated in one of the city’s deadliest residential fires.
