Lone crusader Mok Yim-hay takes on the Housing Authority and wins

Everyone thought Tin Chung Court resident Mok Yim-hay was on a quixotic quest when he took the Housing Authority to court to recover outstanding management fees. The odds seemed no better two years ago, when he switched the battleground to the Lands Tribunal and chose to represent himself. Mok's campaign to pursue fees owed at Tin Chung, a residential estate that the authority developed in Tin Shui Wai, dragged on for years and the stress has taken its toll, both mentally and physically. Mok has not been sleeping well and has lost nearly 10 kilograms over the past two years. But after six years, on July 8, the Lands Tribunal ruled in favour of the retired computer supplier. When he first took his case to the tribunal, Mok says, "I couldn't eat or sleep." Not only was he challenging a huge government institution, he found out the opposing attorney was a senior counsel, Johnny Mok Shu-luen. "Lawyers in that league can charge HK$50,000 per hour." His family also objected to the legal challenge because they knew it would take a severe toll on him. The bone of contention was management fees for six blocks suspected to have structural problems at Tin Chung Court, a Home Ownership Scheme development. Short piling at Tin Chung came to light in 1999 when elevators in one residential block could not be installed due to the tilt of the building. As a result, sales of six blocks built by B+B Construction Company (which later went into liquidation), were put on hold while University of Hong Kong surveyors inspected the buildings. Four were eventually deemed safe, and new owners took up residence two years later, in 2001. The remaining two blocks required extensive structural repair and did not go on sale until 2013. The Housing Authority retained ownership of the six disputed blocks until they were made habitable or sold; however, their management fees through this period had been charged to other flat owners at Tin Chung Court. Mok discovered the discrepancy in 2008 through a casual conversation with management personnel. Outraged, the Tin Chung owners' committee pursued payment from the authority. Housing officials responded with an offer to refund a paltry HK$5.4 million to Tin Chung residents - on condition that they give up their right to seek further compensation related to management charges. The parties involved (the contractor, estate manager and the Housing Authority) would also be absolved of all future responsibility arising from the short piling. Until then Mok hadn't been involved in the owners' committee action. "The terms of the offer made me angry. Residents like us buy a flat so they can have a safe refuge to leave for their offspring. If we agreed to the terms, my children would have to bear the costs of any repairs arising in future from short piling." He rallied residents to reject the offer, and the committee soon put in him in charge of pursuing the outstanding fees. The two sides entered into arbitration in 2010. The housing officials' arrogant stance only strengthened Mok's resolve to launch a legal challenge. "They humiliated me," Mok says, recalling how a senior director did not bother to hear him out or negotiate, telling the committee to decide in 21 days whether to accept its compensation figure of HK$11 million. "The authority thought that being lowly residents, we would be happy with the extra money. They thought that we were ignorant of the law and would not dare to sue them." Mok came up what with he thought was a more reasonable figure, only to have it rejected by the owners' committee. A rift had grown with the owners over the course of action, so he resigned to launch a legal challenge on his own. However, his application for legal aid to sue the authority was rejected. He estimated the total management fees owed by the Housing Authority to be HK$71 million, but with more than 6,000 households at Tin Chung Court, his share of the refund came to just HK$13,000 - poor exchange for the effort he would have to put into the fight. Undeterred, Mok searched for examples of how similar cases were handled. A pair of Tung Chung flat owners who successfully challenged the MTR Corporation, which developed and managed their housing estate, Seaview Crescent, over their management fees, showed Mok the way forward - he could take his case to the Lands Tribunal. "The entry threshold for the tribunal turned out to be quite low. I just had to pay HK$375 to file a case and didn't even need legal representation," he says. If we agreed to the terms, my children would have to bear the costs of any repairs arising in future from short piling Mok Yim-hay But acting as his own counsel involved a lot of hard work. Mok had to familiarise himself with building laws, housing contracts and legal precedents. The Lands Tribunal had ruled on about 30 disputes over management fees, and he studied them all. Hearings on the Tin Chung dispute dragged on for about a year with the authority often applying for delays. "They wanted to wear me out," Mok says. Nevertheless, he prevailed against the authority's formidable legal team and superior war chest - a David-versus-Goliath victory. Mok feels his triumph was all the more resounding because the authority did not appeal the Lands Tribunal ruling, even though the year before officials had insisted they had sufficient justification to win the case. "That meant what they said before was a joke," he says. Mok's fight is not over yet. The authority disputes the HK$71 million that he claims is owed to flat owners, and last month responded with a considerably lower estimate of HK$42.5 million. But Mok's real battle is to get the Housing Authority to take responsibility for the short piling at Tin Chung Court. "I've done a lot of online research about the scandal. The authority sued a German insurance company for more damages arising from the [short piling] scandal." The Housing Authority challenged the obligations of a German insurance consortium that indemnified the liabilities of contractor B+B Construction, arising from the short piling. After mediation, the parties reached a settlement in 2006 with the insurers agreeing to pay the authority €23.8 million (HK$234 million). However, Mok says court documents revealed worrying details about the remediation work undertaken by the Housing Authority on blocks K and L at Tin Chung Court. Hong Kong University, which had been commissioned to inspect the two residential blocks, objected to the method proposed to fix the problem. The authority insisted on using a technique that had never been applied outside the mainland, and had only worked on buildings no taller than seven storeys, Mok says. HKU eventually withdrew from the project. In the end, work went ahead using the mainland technique, and blocks K and L went on sale in 2013. "The two blocks are situated close to the Chung Fu Plaza mall. Large-scale remediation work must affect the foundation of the mall. And any future maintenance related to the two blocks would have to be borne by all residents," Mok says. "My next goal is to challenge the authority on that." Meanwhile, Mok's victory has turned him from a social pariah into a hero in his housing estate. "Before, residents would say that I was stupid for taking on the establishment and my efforts were doomed to failure. Some even said I was out to fill my own pockets," he says. "I was so dejected for a while that I wanted to give up." Of course, residents are delighted that Mok has won as they will have money returned to them, says William Tam Wai-lun, who has lived at Tin Chung Court for 14 years. Of Mok's earlier cool reception, Tam says: "Tin Chung residents are mostly grass-roots people. It's understandable that we are afraid of the authority and don't want to create trouble. As the Chinese saying goes, citizens shouldn't make enemies with the officials. "The owners' committee were pursuing [the outstanding management fees] for years, but they failed. In the end, the committee released a notice saying that they could not do any more and asked the residents to do it themselves. Mok was just one man, how could he succeed? Residents thought the odds of him winning were very low. We didn't have high expectations. "We are impressed by his persistence and determination. In spite of his poor health and heart problems, he persisted. If it wasn't for him, Tin Chung Court would have lost tens of millions of dollars." Recently Mok has rejoined the owners' committee - as chairman. His success has also inspired residents in other estates plagued by short piling issues to challenge the authority. "My case has become a precedent," Mok says. "Tin Fu Court [also in Tin Shui Wai] is pursuing. There are estates with short pilings in Tseung Kwan O and Tung Chung; our case just happened to be the most severe. I'm happy that I've finally been vindicated."

Lone crusader Mok Yim-hay takes on the Housing Authority and wins

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Retiree sued for management fees in a scandal-hit estate

Retiree sued for management fees in a scandal-hit estate