Page 297 of 654
297 of 654
Page 297 of 654
294
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
The second follow-up question is: What are the penalties for the occupant or owner who has been confirmed to be causing the nuisance of water leakage but who has not carried out any repair?
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, about the first follow-up question, that is, what if the occupant or owner is not cooperative and denies the staff of the Urban Services Department entry to the premises, normally when the Department's inspectors are in uniform, the occupant or owner would let them in. They would first of all courteously ask for the permission to enter the premises, ensuring the owner or occupant that their purpose is to carry out investigation rather than to take prosecution action. Normally they would be let in. If the owner still refuses to cooperate or denies their access, the staff could seek an access order from the court. However, the information available so far indicates that the Department has never sought any access order. In other words, normally when the Department's Health Inspectors wearing uniform visit the premises in question, the tenant and occupant would cooperate.
As to the penalties, Mr. Chairman, I do not have the relevant information with me now. Maybe I will give it to Mr. CHUNG after the meeting.
MR. CHOW KWOK-LEUNG (in Cantonese):—I have three follow-up questions which I hope Mr. CHAN will answer. The first question, paragraph 6 in the reply document states that 2081 cases had the cause of water seepage successfully identified. Among them, how many was improvement successfully made? Does the Department have such figures?
The second question, after we have found out the cause of water seepage, are there any procedures for the Department to follow up the cases until the situation has been improved? In other words, would the Department issue any notification with a deadline, what is the normal deadline for improvement and how many further inspections would staff of the Department carry out before the case is considered concluded? I hope that the above questions will be answered with figures.
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, after the cause of water seepage is found out, staff of the Department normally would ask the persons concerned to make improvement. They would immediately issue a notification on removal of the health nuisances, requiring improvement as soon as possible within the specified period and if the premises concerned does not fulfil the requirement, the Department might institute prosecution against them.
Mr. Chairman, about the penalties, that is, the amount of fine and period of imprisonment enquired by Mr. CHUNG, I will submit the information to the relevant Member later.
Page 297 of 654
297 of 654
Page 297 of 654
294
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
The second follow-up question is: What are the penalties for the occupant or owner who has been confirmed to be causing the nuisance of water leakage but who has not carried out any repair?
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, about the first follow-up question, that is, what if the occupant or owner is not cooperative and denies the staff of the Urban Services Department entry to the premises, normally when the Department's inspectors are in uniform, the occupant or owner would let them in. They would first of all courteously ask for the permission to enter the premises, ensuring the owner or occupant that their purpose is to carry out investigation rather than to take prosecution action. Normally they would be let in. If the owner still refuses to cooperate or denies their access, the staff could seek an access order from the court. However, the information available so far indicates that the Department has never sought any access order. In other words, normally when the Department's Health Inspectors wearing uniform visit the premises in question, the tenant and occupant would cooperate.
As to the penalties, Mr. Chairman, I do not have the relevant information with me now. Maybe I will give it to Mr. CHUNG after the meeting.
MR. CHOW KWOK-LEUNG (in Cantonese):—I have three follow-up questions which I hope Mr. CHAN will answer. The first question, paragraph 6 in the reply document states that 2081 cases had the cause of water seepage successfully identified. Among them, how many was improvement successfully made? Does the Department have such figures?
The second question, after we have found out the cause of water seepage, are there any procedures for the Department to follow up the cases until the situation has been improved? In other words, would the Department issue any notification with a deadline, what is the normal deadline for improvement and how many further inspections would staff of the Department carry out before the case is considered concluded? I hope that the above questions will be answered with figures.
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, after the cause of water seepage is found out, staff of the Department normally would ask the persons concerned to make improvement. They would immediately issue a notification on removal of the health nuisances, requiring improvement as soon as possible within the specified period and if the premises concerned does not fulfil the requirement, the Department might institute prosecution against
them.
Mr. Chairman, about the penalties, that is, the amount of fine and period of imprisonment enquired by Mr. CHUNG, I will submit the information to the relevant Member later.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.