**********************************************************
The Buildings Department (BD) announced today (February 5) that warrants had been successfully obtained from the Court in the first six months after section 22(1B) of the Buildings Ordinance (Cap.123) (BO) came into effect on July 20, 2012. The court warrants had facilitated BD staff to enter the premises concerned for inspection and to take enforcement action against unauthorised building works (UBWs). A total of four flats (in three cases) were involved.
According to the department spokesperson, it was evident in the first six months after the ordinance came into effect that owners/occupants were more willing to co-operate when they knew that the department had commenced the pre-application procedures for warrants of entry into their premises under the BO, or warrants had been granted by the Court. They would then let BD staff enter their premises to conduct inspection and perform enforcement duties. The BD thus would be able to respond to reports on building safety issues more effectively and efficiently, as well as to take enforcement action accordingly.
The BD had issued 43 "Notices of intention to apply for warrant of entry" (NOIAs) since section 22(1B) of the BO came into effect, urging the parties concerned to contact the department and arranged for entry to their premises for inspection. In addition to the three cases mentioned above, in which warrants had been successfully applied for, the flat owners in 19 cases had taken initiative to contact staff of the BD and make arrangement for their entry into the premises after the receipt of the NOIAs. It was therefore not necessary to apply for court warrants in these cases. As regards the remaining cases, since the NOIAs were issued only recently, the BD would continue to contact the owners/occupants.
The BD spokesman appealed for the co-operation of the owners and occupants for their own benefit and that of the general public. Irregularities could then be identified early and loss of lives and property be avoided. If the owners/occupants concerned were still uncooperative after repeated persuasion, the BD would actively consider invoking section 22(1B) of the BO to apply for warrants from the Court, so that they can enter the individual premises and take vigorous enforcement against UBWs.
The three cases mentioned above, in which warrants were successfully applied for, are as follows.
Case 1: Sheung Heung Road, To Kwa Wan
The BD successfully obtained a warrant from the court under section 22(1B) of the BO in order to enter a flat on the third floor of a five-storey industrial building located in To Kwa Wan. It was suspected that the flat concerned had been sub-divided and changed to domestic use.
The occupation permit of the subject building was issued in December 1956. According to the approved building plans of the subject building, it was intended for non-domestic use. The building was one of the target buildings of BD's large scale operation on inspection and rectification of irregularities of building works associated with sub-divided flats (LSO on SDFs).
The BD staff carried out inspection of various storeys of the building concerned many times between May and August, 2012. It was noticed that many flats, as well as the roof-top, were sub-divided for domestic use. It was therefore suspected that the use of the flat on the third floor had also been changed, likely in contravention of section 25 of the BO. No one answered the door during the many visits on different dates made by BD staff during the above mentioned period. The BD therefore issued a NOIA to the owner/occupants, so that arrangement could be made for their entry into the premises for inspection. No response was received from either the owner or the occupants.
The BD thus applied for a warrant from the Court in September 2012. According to section 22(1) of the BO, an authorised officer may at any time enter and where necessary, in the presence of a police officer, break into any premises to ascertain whether any building or structure is dangerous or liable to become dangerous.
After a warrant was successfully obtained from the Court, the BD issued a "Notice of intention to execute warrant of entry" (NOIE) to the owner and occupants. The owner and occupants were notified that a court warrant had been obtained and arrangement was being made to enter their premises. However, no one answered the door on the day of execution of the warrant. Another NOIE was issued to the owner and occupant. They were notified that BD staff may break into the flat when necessary. BD staff eventually entered the flat with the owner's consent and conducted an inspection. It was confirmed that the flat was sub-divided into five units for domestic use.
The BD issued a removal order to the owner in October 2012 under the BO, ordering the owner to remove the UBWs concerned and discontinue the use of the flat for domestic purposes.
Case 2: Castle Peak Road, Kwai Chung
The BD successfully obtained a warrant from the Court under section 22(1B) of the BO in order to enter a flat on Castle Peak Road. Unauthorised building works were suspected to have been carried out to sub-divide it into small units. The occupation permit for the subject building was issued in July 1973. There were a total of 14 storeys including the ground floor. According to the approved building plans for the subject building, the intended use of the ground floor was commercial, non-domestic use for the first and second floors, and domestic use for each of the eight flats from the third to 10th floors and each of the six flats from the 11th to 13th floors.
The building was one of the target buildings of BD's LSO on SDFs. The BD staff had visited various storeys of the building many times. One of the flats on the 13th floor was suspected for having been sub-divided with drains in defective or insanitary condition, and the alteration and addition works involved were suspected not to be in compliance with the standard of structural stability or public health established by the building regulations. BD staff had visited the flat many times between November 2011 and August 2012. The door was unanswered or entry was denied by the occupants. The BD thus issued a NOIA to the owner and occupants. The parties concerned were urged to contact the BD staff so that arrangement could be made for entry for inspection. However, no response was received from either the owner or the occupants. The BD invoked section 22(1B) of the BO to apply for a warrant from the Court in September 2012.
After a warrant was successfully obtained from the Court, the BD issued a NOIE to the owner and occupants. The owner and occupants were notified that a court warrant had been obtained and arrangements were being made to enter their premises. However, only one of the sub-divided units could be entered for inspection on the day of execution of the warrant. Another NOIE was then issued to the owner and occupants of the remaining sub-divided units. They were notified that BD staff would execute the warrant again and may break into the flat when necessary.
The BD staff eventually entered all the sub-divided units with the owner's and occupants' consent and conducted an inspection. It was confirmed that the premises was sub-divided into three units. However, the drains inside the sub-divided units were found to be neither defective nor in an insanitary condition. No danger was posed to the structure of the building by the alteration and addition works involved therein. The BD would not take further action for the time being.
Case 3: Wai Yip Street, Kwun Tong
The BD successfully obtained warrants from the Court under section 22(1B) of the BO in October 2012 in order to enter into two premises on the 7th floor of a 14-storey industrial building located in Kwun Tong. The premises were suspected to have been sub-divided for domestic use.
The occupation permit of the subject building was issued in October 1983. According to the approved building plans of the subject building, it was intended for non-domestic use. The building was one of the target buildings of BD's LSO on SDFs. BD staff had visited various storeys of the building many times between July and October 2010. The doors of these two premises on the seventh floor were locked and unanswered. According to the inspection results of the external areas and information gathered from other users of the building, the BD suspected that the premises concerned had been sub-divided for domestic use, in contravention of section 25 of the BO. The BD thus issued NOIAs to the owner and occupants concerned, urging the owner and occupants to contact them for arrangement to enter into the premises for inspection. However, there were no response from either the owner or the occupants for arrangement for entry for the necessary inspection. The BD thus applied for warrants from the Court in October 2012.
After warrants were successfully obtained from the Court, the BD issued NOIEs to owner and occupants of the two premises on the seventh floor. The owner and occupants were notified that a court warrant had been obtained and arrangements were being made to enter their premises. The BD staff eventually entered the two premises with the owner's consent. It was confirmed that one of the premises was sub-divided into eight units. According to the results of site inspection, the sub-divided units were used as storage rooms, a studio and a beauty centre. Alteration works had also been carried out in the other premises. It was vacant at the time of inspection.
Since the building works sub-dividing the premise did not involve material change in use, and did not constitute danger to the structure of the building, the BD will not take further action for the time being. However, the alteration works have been put on record. Should there be a change in circumstances, the department will take appropriate action in accordance with the prevailing enforcement policy and relevant laws.
Ends/Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Issued at HKT 15:36
NNNN