The claim that an inquiry heard that the tendering system cannot stop firms from manipulating the market is mentioned in the context of the Tai Po fire inquiry (web_search: Tai Po fire: tendering system can’t stop firms manipulating market...). However, the provided evidence consists of general definitions of 'inquiry' (web_search: Inquiry - Wikipedia, web_search: INQUIRY Definition & Meaning, web_search: INQUIRY | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary) and does not independently corroborate the specific finding regarding the tendering system's inability to prevent market manipulation from multiple sources.

The claim that URA stated it would not interfere with homeowners' decisions, even if suspicious activity was detected, is not independently corroborated by multiple sources. While the context of URA's role is discussed in relation to the fire, this specific statement is only found in the web search result associated with the claim itself.

The claim that the fire at Wang Fuk Court occurred last November while the estate was undergoing renovations is mentioned in the web search results (web_search: Tai Po fire: tendering system can’t stop firms manipulating market...; web_search: HK residential area fire - Chinadaily.com.cn). However, the evidence does not provide enough independent confirmation of the specific timing (last November) and the renovation status from multiple, distinct sources.

Although the claim relates to the cost of an exterior overhaul, the provided evidence (web_search: Top Psychologist, Donald Hoffman; web_search: Iran War Cost Tracker; web_search: London and a £70 million estate) is completely irrelevant to the Tai Po fire or any cost estimates related to the estate overhaul. Therefore, the claim cannot be corroborated or verified using the provided evidence.