天價維修禁之不絕 當局介入須更主動

<轉載自2024年3月14日 明報 社評>

樓宇天價維修風波屢見不鮮，柴灣樂翠臺是最新例子，當中不少情節，都令人覺得有欺瞞誤導成分，雖然小業主已表決終止維修工程合約，當局仍須查明事件，若發現有不法行為，必須從嚴法辦。樓宇維修事關民生，完善地區治理，就是為了幫居民排難解憂。大廈法團與小業主就維修工程問題紛爭迭起，民政事務處表面上是「球證」，但大多數時候僅作壁上觀。今次樂翠臺風波，民政處人員適度介入，為保障小業主權益發揮了積極作用，期望這是公權力態度改變的開端。政府修訂《建築物管理條例》打擊圍標，外界關注力度是否足夠，當局應考慮採取更有力的做法，保障小業主。

樂翠臺維修疑團多 黑箱作業亟待徹查

今次鬧出天價維修風波的樂翠臺，1988年落成，樓齡36年。去年6月，業主大會通過大維修，法團主席聲稱可申請市建局資助，最終通過揀選工程公司及1.07億元維修方案，然而現實是屋苑樓齡未足40年，根本不合資格申請資助，每戶須支付約10萬元維修費。同年9月，屋苑方面尚未集資，工程公司便開始搭棚。服務屋苑38年的管理公司之後突然請辭，還發出通告指法團未有提供工程資料，同時又分析屋苑財政狀况，認為不足以應付上億元的工程費，冀法團盡快處理和公布資金及財務安排。更令居民震驚的是，原來業主大會所採納的維修方案，造價竟比市建局估價高出近六成。

根據市建局說法，局方去年11月曾發信通知法團，業主大會通過揀選工程承辦商之回標價，遠高於市建局獨立顧問估計的6800萬元。業主不滿法團未公開工程合約及造價過高，今年1月入稟土地審裁處，獲頒令召開特別業主大會。法團最終安排本周二召開業主大會，經過多番擾攘，小業主終以壓倒票數，通過終止及暫停大維修承辦商的工程合約，以及撤換大廈管理委員會所有委員。樂翠臺維修風波算是暫時告一段落，然而尚有不少問題有待跟進和處理。

特別業主大會召開前，負責工程的承建商張貼告示，聲稱去年與法團簽訂「授予合約確認書」後已投入大量資源，若小業主最終決定終止工程，將追討總工程費約三成的賠償，涉款數千萬元。由於不清楚合約具體條款，暫時無法判斷承建商是否有權申索巨額賠償，然而看在小業主眼裏，這次維修風波，有點像「天仙局」，現在僥倖脫困，竟然還要面對巨額索賠，當真是天理何在。屋苑維修涉款龐大，事前搞清楚是否有資格申請市建局資助，乃是法團基本責任。有業主質疑去年6月業主大會投票存在誤導情况，並非不可理解；法團未有向管理公司提供工程資料，整件事的處理，予人感覺是黑箱作業。當局有必要嚴肅徹查事件，一旦發現有人違法，必須重懲，以儆效尤。

政府雖有「招標妥」等計劃，可是樓宇天價維修風波仍時有所聞，圍標亂象更是禁之不絕。不法集團往往透過圍標等手法，推高工程合約報價，再賄賂工程顧問、法團主席等不同人物，奪下工程合約，牟取不法暴利。去年廉政公署便搗破一個樓宇維修貪腐集團，拘捕約50人，當中包括建築公司東主、法團主席及成員等，涉及的工程項目至少10個，合約涉款累計逾5億元。廉署指出，貪污集團常用招數之一，就是從業主大會入手，行賄有影響力者，左右小業主決定。誠如廉署所言，樓宇維修牽涉複雜程序，容易出現貪污風險，業主應該積極參與樓宇管理，親身出席業主大會。與此同時，政府亦應該更加積極主動協助小業主。

民生無小事，政府提升地區治理效能，目標就是為民生排難解憂，增加幸福感。樓宇維修對很多業主和居民而言是大事，一旦出了狀况，可以相當困擾，當局既要從宏觀政策層面打擊圍標亂象，也要從地區治理微觀層面，協助有需要的業主和居民。大廈管理紛糾問題，一般由民政總署跟進。總署有為法團和業主提供法律諮詢等服務，地區民政處也會與法團及業主保持聯繫，當知悉大廈或屋苑有意進行維修工程時，會鼓勵業主積極參與，惟整體而言，民政總署和地區民政處所扮演的角色，一向相當抽離，即使派人出席業主大會，也往往採取冷眼旁觀態度，不會主動介入。

民政處介入保障業主 修例打擊圍標須有力

今次樂翠臺風波，法團一再聲稱對業主大會一切運作「有最終決定權」。特別業主大會上，法團主席一度以需要交還場地等理由宣布延會，變相想擱置討論和表決。民政處代表在關鍵時刻指出，主席無權延會，需在場居民決定。處方代表的介入，對於會議得以繼續，發揮了重要作用。大廈維修管理糾紛頻生，小業主相對弱勢，處方若能一改過去被動抽離的態度，多點適度介入，對於保障小業主權益，其實相當重要。

政府去年提出修訂《建築物管理條例》，加強打擊圍標，然而令人意外的是，當局向立法會提交的方案，某程度反而降低了業主大會表決「大型維修工程」的門檻，僅須至少5%業主或100名業主親身投票，比原先建議的「至少5%或200名業主」有所放寬。當局聲稱這是聽取了不同持份者意見，以免會議法定人數要求太高，容易流會，但樂翠臺風波說明，真的出了狀况，一樣可以成功召集約600名業主來開會，人數門檻訂得太低，反而有可能遭人利用。當局有必要考慮，是否有更好的做法。

More Proactive Intervention Needed to Tackle Overpriced Building Maintenance

CONTROVERSIES over exorbitant building maintenance costs have become a common occurrence. Neptune Terrace, a housing estate in Chai Wan, is the latest example. Many elements in the saga smack of fraud and attempts to mislead people. While ordinary flat owners on the estate have voted to terminate the maintenance contract, the authorities still need to investigate the incident and strictly deal with any illegality that is found.

Neptune Terrace, which has been caught up in a controversy over exorbitant maintenance costs, was completed in 1988 and thus has a history of 36 years. In June last year, the owners' meeting gave the green light to a major maintenance plan. The chairperson of the Incorporated Owners' Committee (IOC) claimed that the project would be eligible for a subsidy from the Urban Renewal Authority (URA). Finally, an engineering company was chosen, and a maintenance plan of $107 million was adopted. However, it was revealed that since the estate was less than 40 years old, it was ineligible for the subsidy, meaning that each household had to part with $100,000 for the maintenance.

In September of the same year, the engineering company began putting up scaffolding even though the housing estate had not even raised funds for the project. The management company, which had served the housing estate for 38 years, suddenly resigned. It issued a notice, stating that the IOC had not provided information about the project. The management company also presented an analysis of the financial position of the estate, which it argued was insufficient to cope with a maintenance project costing over $100 million. The company called on the IOC to deal with the matter and publish funding and financial arrangements as soon as possible. Even more shocking to the residents was that the maintenance project adopted by the owners' meeting was nearly 60% higher in cost than the URA's estimate.

The URA said that it had sent a letter to the IOC in November last year, informing the IOC that the tender price offered by the engineering contractor and approved by the owners' meeting was much higher than the $68 million estimated by the URA's independent consultant. The owners, dissatisfied with the IOC's failure to disclose the construction contract and the excessively high cost, filed a complaint with the Lands Tribunal in January this year, which decreed that a special owners' meeting be convened.

At last, the IOC arranged an owners' meeting on Tuesday (12 March). After much disarray, the ordinary owners voted overwhelmingly to terminate and suspend the contract with the maintenance contractor, as well as replacing all members of the building management committee.

Before the special owners' meeting, the contractor responsible for the project had posted a notice, claiming that it had invested a lot of resources after signing the "Confirmation of Contract Award" with the IOC last year. The contractor vowed to seek compensation equivalent to about 30% of the total project cost, i.e., tens of millions of dollars, if the ordinary flat owners finally decided to end the project.

Last year, the government proposed amendments to the Building Management Ordinance to combat bid-rigging more vigorously. However, to people's surprise, the plan submitted by the authorities to the Legislative Council actually lowered, to a certain extent, the threshold for owners' meetings to vote on "major maintenance projects". Under the amendment, such a meeting will only require a minimum of 5% of property owners or 100 property owners to vote in person, which is somewhat laxer than the original recommendation of ''at least 5% or 200 property owners''.

The authorities claim that they made this suggestion after listening to the views of different stakeholders. If the quorum is too high, it will be easy for a meeting to have to be adjourned, they say. However, the incident of Neptune Terrace shows that if a real situation arises, it is indeed possible to summon 600 owners or so to a meeting. In contrast, a meeting threshold that is too low will make it possible for some people to exploit it. The authorities need to consider whether there is a better practice.

天價維修禁之不絕 當局介入須更主動

樓宇天價維修風波屢見不鮮，柴灣樂翠臺是最新例子，當中不少情節，都令人覺得有欺瞞誤導成分，雖然小業主已表決終止維修工程合約，當局仍須查明事件，若發現有不法行為，必須從嚴法辦。

今次鬧出天價維修風波的樂翠臺，1988年落成，樓齡36年。去年6月，業主大會通過大維修，法團主席聲稱可申請市建局資助，最終通過揀選工程公司及1.07億元維修方案，然而現實是屋苑樓齡未足40年，根本不合資格申請資助，每戶須支付約10萬元維修費。

同年9月，屋苑方面尚未集資，工程公司便開始搭棚。服務屋苑38年的管理公司之後突然請辭，還發出通告指法團未有提供工程資料，同時又分析屋苑財政狀况，認為不足以應付上億元的工程費，冀法團盡快處理和公布資金及財務安排。更令居民震驚的是，原來業主大會所採納的維修方案，造價竟比市建局估價高出近六成。

根據市建局說法，局方去年11月曾發信通知法團，業主大會通過揀選工程承辦商之回標價，遠高於市建局獨立顧問估計的6800萬元。業主不滿法團未公開工程合約及造價過高，今年1月入稟土地審裁處，獲頒令召開特別業主大會。

法團最終安排本周二召開業主大會，經過多番擾攘，小業主終以壓倒票數，通過終止及暫停大維修承辦商的工程合約，以及撤換大廈管理委員會所有委員。

特別業主大會召開前，負責工程的承建商張貼告示，聲稱去年與法團簽訂「授予合約確認書」後已投入大量資源，若小業主最終決定終止工程，將追討總工程費約三成的賠償，涉款數千萬元。

政府去年提出修訂《建築物管理條例》，加強打擊圍標，然而令人意外的是，當局向立法會提交的方案，某程度反而降低了業主大會表決「大型維修工程」的門檻，僅須至少5%業主或100名業主親身投票，比原先建議的「至少5%或200名業主」有所放寬。

當局聲稱這是聽取了不同持份者意見，以免會議法定人數要求太高，容易流會，但樂翠臺風波說明，真的出了狀况，一樣可以成功召集約600名業主來開會，人數門檻訂得太低，反而有可能遭人利用。當局有必要考慮，是否有更好的做法。