| Case Name |
Result of excessively issueing the subsidy not the calculation of delivery amount of the public housing construction project cost subsidy was appropriate. |
| Pictograph |
|
| Date |
1993 |
| Place |
Oita prefecture. |
| Location |
The prefectural office. |
| Overview |
Special case addition amount for the special outdoor accessory construction was calculated by applying the limited cost par house in installing individual sewage treatment tank, although it should have been calculated by applying limited costin not installing individual sewage treatment tank. Therefore, government subsidy considerable amount \ 4,614,000 was excessively issued on the grant application of the subsidy, and it was considered unreasonable. |
| Incident |
The amount of the subsidy shall have been calculated every year by multiplying construction expenses of public housing par door which Minister of Construction determines by number of constructions of houses, and in the case of special outdoor accessory construction of the effluent treatment facility etc., the amount ( of the following "the special case addition amount" ) recognized in the range of the limited cost which Minister of Construction determines is added and multiplied by grant rate. The limited cost of the special case addition amount has been determined higher in case that individual sewage treatment tank is installed as effluent treatment facility than in case that it is not installed. And, in the estate construction over the certain scale, in case the individual sewage treatment tank installation construction was carried out separately from the building main body construction, subsidy for this shall be delivered separately from the building main body construction. Special case addition amount of the special outdoor accessory construction which concerns the Jonan estate of 114 doors was calcutaled by applying \ 1,899,000 limited costs par door in installing individual sewage treatment tank. However, the individual sewage treatment tank installation construction of the estate had been carried out in 1988 separating from the building main body construction, and it has already received the delivery of the subsidy which concerns this. Therefore, the special case addition amount of the special outdoor accessory construction of the estate should be calculated by applying \ 1,199,000 limited costs of the 1 door stop in not installing individual sewage treatment tank. Therefore, it excessively issues government subsidies \ 4,614,000, it is considered unreasonable. |
| Sequence |
* Based on the Public Housing Law, Oita prefecture constructed prefectural Jonan estate and another public housing total of 150 doors of 1 estate by the delivery of public housing construction project cost subsidy \ 1,086,237,000.
* Government subsidies \ 4,614,000 was excessively issued since the special case addition amount of the special outdoor accessory construction had been calculated by applying the limited cost par door for installing individual sewage treatment tank, in spite of already carrying out the individual sewage treatment tank installation construction of the estate separately from the building main body constructionand and receiving the subsidy. |
| Cause |
If it was not overcharged intentionally, they seemed to misunderstand the regulation for the special case addition amount of not the case of installing the individual treatment tank but the case of the building with the individual treatment tank. In 93, they might have misunderstood that the installation of the individual treatment tank is also carried out, but the possibility would be lower than the former. |
| Countermeasures |
Make the manual on integration amount which does not cause the misunderstanding. And the quantity surveyor should read well so that there may be no error judgment. |
| Knowledge Comment |
In excessively issueing, there are many examples of requiring the subsidy by adding cost for business which is not actually carried out or material which is not actually used. |
| Scenario |
| Primary Scenario
|
Misjudgment, Misperception, Regular Movement, Wrong Movement, Possible Damage, Potential Hazard
|
|
| Sources |
1995 fiscal year settlement inspection report ( Board of Audit ).
|
| Financial Cost |
Government subsidy delivery amount considered unreasonable : \ 6487,800. |
| Field |
Civil Engineering
|
| Author |
YONEZAWA, Akio (The University of Tokyo)
KUNISHIMA, Masahiko (The University of Tokyo)
|
|
