處理滲水投訴
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
以下為立法會會議上盧偉國議員的提問和發展局局長陳茂波的答覆：
問題：
目前，由屋宇署和食物環境生署成立的聯合辦事處（聯合辦）負責處理大廈樓層間滲水的個案，統籌有關投訴的調查和執法工作。就此，政府可否告知本會：
（一）本年至今，聯合辦接獲多少宗有關滲水投訴，與過去３年的數字如何比較；過去３年，聯合辦每年完成處理和已確證滲水源頭的個案數目分別有多少，以及每年分別就多少宗個案向法院申請進入處所的手令和發出「妨擾事故通知」；
（二）鑑於處理滲水投訴需動用公共資源，當局有沒有具體的措施，防止投訴機制遭濫用並杜絕虛報；若有，詳情為何；若沒有，原因為何；及
（三）鑑於有專業人士向本人指出，聯合辦現時採用的色水測試在某些情況下會得出錯誤的滲水源頭結論，而聯合辦正就加強調查滲水源頭的方法進行研究，並最近委聘顧問公司嘗試應用其他探測儀器，該等工作的初步結果為何，以及有沒有就引入其他測試方法或探測儀器以調查滲水源頭制訂時間表；若沒有時間表，原因為何？
答覆：
主席：
管理和維修保養樓宇，包括解決樓層間的滲水問題，是樓宇業主應有的責任。故此，私人物業內部若出現滲水情況，業主應首先自行檢驗滲水原因，並視乎情況和需要與有關的住戶及其他業主協調，進行維修工程。
但當有關滲水情況構成生妨擾、樓宇結構安全風險或浪費供水，政府便會分別根據《公眾生及市政條例》（第１３２章）、《建築物條例》（第１２３章）或《水務設施條例》（第１０２章）所賦予的權力，介入處理個案。現時由屋宇署及食物環境生署人員組成的聯合辦事處（聯辦處），以「一站式」的運作模式，統一處理滲水舉報。若確認滲水構成生妨擾，聯辦處會根據《公眾生及市政條例》的相關條文，向有關人士發出「妨擾事故通知」，要求當事人減除滲水妨擾。如有需要，亦會轉介個案予屋宇署或水務署，採取適當的跟進行動，包括危險建築物由屋宇署根據《建築物條例》的規定處理，浪費供水則由水務署根據《水務設施條例》的有關條文規定敦促涉事用戶進行修理。
就問題的三個部分，我的答覆如下：
（一）由二○一三年一月一日至九月三十日，聯辦處共接獲２２ ８０２宗滲水舉報。至於在二○一○、二○一一及二○一二年的過去３年，聯辦處接獲的滲水舉報分別為２５ ７１７宗、２３ ６６０宗和２７ ３５３宗。問題要求提供的過去３年的分項統計數字，列載於附件。
（二）當接獲有關樓宇滲水的舉報後，聯辦處人員會先作查證，剔除因為不涉及生妨擾而不屬於聯辦處法定權限可跟進的個案，與及缺乏理據，或滲水情況已終止或舉報人中途撤銷舉報等個案。對這些被甄別為不需予以跟進的個案，聯辦處不會展開進一步調查。這類被剔除的個案大約佔每年所接獲的滲水舉報數目的５０％，我們認為現行的措施已能有效防止虛報或濫用投訴機制。
正如我剛才指出，業主有責任處理樓宇管理和保養方面的事宜，包括視乎情況與其他相關住戶和業主協調解決物業出現滲水的情況，政府只有在可根據相關法例行使法定權力的情況下，才可介入滲水的個案。自聯辦處成立以來，向聯辦處提出滲水舉報的數目不斷增加。聯辦處每年接獲的舉報數目在６年間增加了５７％，由二○○七年（即聯辦處成立後的首個完整年度）的１７ ４０５宗，增加至二○一二年的２７ ３５３宗。有關現象除顯示有更多市民向聯辦處提出滲水舉報外，也反映滲水問題正在隨現存樓宇日漸老化而日趨普遍。有鑑於此，聯辦處一方面會致力提升處理滲水個案的成效，另一方面亦會透過宣傳和公眾教育，加強業主對樓宇保養、維修和管理的意識，希望能夠循不同方向更有效地處理樓宇滲水的問題。
（三）導致樓宇滲水的原因十分多，聯辦處會因應個別個案的情況，採取合適的而又不會對建築物造成破損的檢測以查找滲水源頭，包括濕度監察、色水測試、地台蓄水測試、牆壁灑水測試及供水喉管反向壓力測試等，這些皆是被業界廣泛使用的有效測試方法。除了目視檢測外，聯辦處人員亦會按情況使用不同的儀器如電子濕度儀、紫外光電筒和濾光眼鏡等協助進行各種調查和測試。若有需要，聯辦處人員會收集滲水位置的批盪或滲水樣本，送交政府化驗所化驗。
為進一步提升聯辦處調查工作的成效，聯辦處的恆常措施之一，是物色其他能協助查找出滲水源頭的方法和儀器。聯辦處現正在香港應用科技研究院的協助下，研究是否可透過實時監察懷疑滲水單位的用水情況和滲水位置的濕度變化，協助尋找滲水的源頭。聯辦處留意到現時市面上有一些探測儀器，例如紅外線探測儀和微波探測儀等，可以探測滲水位置的濕度變化。聯辦處最近亦嘗試應用有關儀器以拍攝紅外線造影及進行微波濕度立體造型，以協助在一些較複雜的滲水個案，追查滲水源頭。
Following is a question by the Ir Dr Hon Lo Wai-kwok and a reply by the Secretary for Development, Mr Paul Chan, in the Legislative Council:
Question:
Currently, the Joint Office (JO) set up by the Buildings Department and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department is responsible for handling cases of inter-floor water seepage in buildings as well as coordinating investigations into and law enforcement actions about the relevant complaints. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of water seepage complaints received by JO this year to date, and how this figure compares with those of the past three years; of the respective numbers of cases concluded and those with the sources of water seepage established by JO, as well as the respective numbers of cases in which JO applied to the court for warrants for entry into premises and issued Nuisance Notices, in each of the past three years;
(b) given that the processing of water seepage complaints entails the use of public resources, whether the authorities have any specific measure to prevent abuse of the complaint mechanism and eradicate false reports; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(c) as some professionals have pointed out to me that under certain circumstances, wrong conclusions on the sources of water seepage would be derived from the colour water tests currently adopted by JO, and that JO is exploring more effective methods for water seepage investigations and has recently commissioned a consultancy to pilot other testing equipment, of the preliminary outcome of such efforts; whether the Government has drawn up any timetable for the introduction of other testing methods or equipment to investigate the sources of water seepage; if no timetable is available, of the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
While the management, maintenance and repair of buildings are the responsibilities of property owners, they are also responsible for resolving any inter-floor water seepage problems. Hence, if water seepage is found inside a private property, the owner should first investigate the cause and, as appropriate, co-ordinate with the occupants and other owners concerned for repairs.
However, where the water seepage poses a health nuisance, a risk to the structural safety of a building or wastage of water, the Government would intervene and handle the case in accordance with the powers conferred by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (PHMSO) (Cap 132), Buildings Ordinance (BO) (Cap 123) or Waterworks Ordinance (WO) (Cap 102) respectively. The Joint Office (JO), currently set up with staff of the Buildings Department (BD) and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, is tasked to tackle reports on water seepage through a "one-stop shop" approach. Where it is established that the water seepage constitutes a health nuisance, the JO will issue a Nuisance Notice under the relevant provisions of the PHMSO, directing the party concerned to abate the seepage nuisance. If necessary, the case will be referred to the BD or the Water Supplies Department (WSD) for appropriate follow-up action, including the handling of dangerous buildings by the BD in accordance with the BO, and the handling of wastage of water by the WSD in accordance with the relevant provisions of the WO requiring the occupant concerned to carry out repairs.
My reply to the three-part question is as follows:
(a) Between January 1 and September 30, 2013, the JO received a total
of 22 802 reports on water seepage. As for the past three years (i.e. 2010, 2011 and 2012), the JO received 25 717, 23 660 and 27 353 reports on water seepage respectively. The statistics for the past three years as requested in the question is tabulated in the Annex.
(b) Upon receipt of reports on water seepage in buildings, JO staff will first ascertain the seepage condition and screen out those cases not involving health nuisance and hence do not fall within the scope of follow-up action under the statutory authority of the JO, as well as the unjustified cases or cases with water seepage ceased or cases withdrawn by the informants during the course of investigation. For cases categorised to be non-actionable, the JO will not conduct further investigation. Given that the screened out cases amount to about 50% of the number of water seepage reports received in each year, we consider that the current measures have been effective in eradicating false reports or preventing abuse of the complaint mechanism.
As I pointed out earlier, owners are responsible for handling building management and maintenance issues, including, as appropriate, co-ordination with other occupants and owners concerned for resolving problems of water seepage in buildings. Government could intervene in water seepage cases only if statutory authority may be exercised under the relevant legislation. Since its establishment, the number of reports on water seepage received by the JO has continually been on the rise. The number of reports received each year rose from 17 405 in 2007 (the first full year of the JO's establishment) to 27 353 in 2012, representing an increase of 57% over six years. This phenomenon not only indicates more water seepage cases reported to the JO by the public, but also reflects that water seepage problems are getting more common as existing buildings age in the course of time. In light of this, the JO would strive to enhance the effectiveness of water seepage investigations on the one hand, and to foster owners' awareness of building maintenance, repair and management through publicity and public education on the other with a view to handling water seepage problems more effectively through different approaches.
(c) There are many different reasons causing water seepage in buildings. Having regard to the circumstances of individual cases, the JO will adopt appropriate non-destructive tests to ascertain the source of water seepage, including moisture content monitoring, colour water test, ponding test for floor slabs, water spray test for walls and reversible pressure test for water supply pipes, etc., which are effective testing methods widely adopted by the industry. Apart from visual inspection, JO staff will, as appropriate, conduct various kinds of investigations and tests with the aid of different equipment, such as moisture meter, ultraviolet torch and fluorescence-enhancing glasses. If necessary, JO staff will collect plaster or seepage samples of the seepage spots for analysis by the Government Laboratory.
To further enhance the effectiveness of the JO's investigations, identification of other suitable methods and equipment for investigation of source of seepage is one of the on-going measures of the JO. The JO, with the assistance of the Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute, is exploring the feasibility of tracing the source of water seepage through real-time monitoring of the water consumption and variation in the moisture content of the seepage spot in the premises suspected to be the source of water seepage. The JO is aware that there is a number of testing equipment available at the market, such as infrared camera and microwave tomography scanning device, which can ascertain the variation in the moisture content of seepage spot. The JO has recently tried to apply the said equipment for infrared imaging and microwave 3-D moisture modeling in an attempt to facilitate identification of seepage source in more complicated water seepage cases.
