In recent years, playhouses for children have gained popularity in Hong Kong. These playhouses provide an array of gaming experiences and large-scale adventure facilities, such as rope tunnel courses, gigantic ball pits and giant slides. Unaffected by inclement weather, playhouses are favoured by parents as ideal destinations to take children to alleviate the pressures of life. However, the Consumer Council has from time to time received complaints concerning children’s playhouses, including instances of children getting injured from falls while navigating the rope tunnel; ambiguous terms for the free playtime offer following enrolment in a toddler playgroup; and resetting the account balance to zero without prior notice upon expiry of the membership period, while the minimum account top-up amount exceeded the playhouse’s hourly rate, yet no refund was available.
The Council would like to remind the industry that indoor playhouses must follow stringent safety standards in terms of game design and venue layout. They should also properly assess and mitigate any safety risks and provide sufficient safety measures to participants to ensure a positive experience for both parents and children. The terms and conditions of use should be clearly stated, and flexible pricing policies are recommended to manage expectations and minimise disputes between traders and users.
Case 1: Child Fell from Rope Tunnel and Suffered a Fracture
The complainant and her husband took their child to Playhouse A and used its large-scale adventure facility, which featured slopes, ball pits, and rope tunnel courses. The complainant’s husband initially accompanied their child into the facility. The child then had to navigate a narrow tunnel on his own and walk to the rope tunnel, while the complainant waited at its exit. When traversing the rope tunnel, however, the child slipped and fell from a height. Upon examination, it was found that he could not move his right forearm nor bend his fingers normally. After a further check-up at the hospital, the doctor diagnosed the child with a forearm dislocation and a wrist fracture, which required immediate casting to immobilise the limb. The complainant later requested a refund of the entrance fee from Playhouse A, in addition to compensation for the medical expenses or other forms of compensation, but was met with ambiguous responses. Consequently, she turned to the Council for assistance.
Following the Council’s intervention, Playhouse A expressed deep condolences to the complainant, and proposed a compensation of $3,000. As the child is still undergoing treatment and follow-up consultations, the complainant has yet to accept the trader’s offer, and is considering pursuing further legal action.
Case 2: Free Playtime Offer with Course Enrolment but Ambiguous Terms Led to Dispute
Toddler Playgroup Centre B introduced a limited-time promotion that offered consumers 4 hours of complimentary playtime at their playhouse for “one adult and one child” upon signing up for their 16-class package. The complainant enrolled her 2-year-old younger son and received the associated offer. However, when she later brought her 4-year-old elder son to enjoy the offer, she was informed that the “one child” stipulation was only applicable to the centre’s enrolled students, which in this case was her younger son. The complainant however found no mention of this requirement upon reviewing the enrolment and promotional materials again, nor had the staff explained the relevant terms during the course enrolment process. She was dissatisfied with the lack of clearly listed exemption clauses in the offer. Despite multiple attempts to communicate with Centre B, no agreement was reached, prompting her to file a complaint with the Council.
Centre B explained to the Council that the intention of the offer was to provide students with parent-child bonding opportunities through playtime outside of classes. They acknowledged that the terms of the offer did not explicitly state that it was only applicable to enrolled students and promised to make amendments and provide clearer information to consumers. Although Centre B was unable to accommodate the complainant’s elder son in this offer, they were willing to refund the remaining course fees. The complainant decided to continue with the course for her younger son, but forgo the offer due to concerns of him being too young to safely use the playhouse facilities. The case was thus resolved.
Case 3: Account Balance Forfeited at Membership Expiry Without Notice
Minimum Top-up Amount Exceeded the Hourly Rate
Indoor Playhouse C was a members-only facility, requiring consumers to register and top up their accounts (by a minimum of $200 each time) in order to enjoy the services. The complainant signed up for a 1-year membership and was issued a membership card. Sometime later, when taking her child to the playhouse, she was informed that her membership had expired, and as a result her account balance was forfeited. She was advised to top up at least $200 to reactivate her account. The complainant noted that the membership card did not display an expiry date, nor any terms that stipulated that account balances would be forfeited upon expiry of membership. To avoid disappointing her child, however, she resorted to topping up $200 to reactivate her membership. Several months later, she discovered that the hourly rate of the playhouse had increased from $100 to $120. With only a $100 balance in her account, she enquired if she could pay the $20 difference to enjoy the facilities for an hour. This request was rejected by Playhouse C right away, which insisted on a minimum top-up amount of $200 to complete the transaction.
Frustrated by Playhouse C repeatedly pressuring consumers to top up, the complainant requested the Council’s intervention to recover the remaining $100 balance. In response, Playhouse C pointed out that the terms on the membership card had clearly stated that “each top-up must be at least $200” and “the remaining balance cannot be exchanged for cash”, and hence refused to refund the remaining balance. The Council recommended the complainant to consider seeking legal advice.
Spending parent-child time with your family should be an enjoyable experience. However, consumer disputes or accidents resulting in injuries would put a damper on these joyful moments. As such, the safety of children’s playhouses is paramount. When deciding which venue to visit, consumers should consider the following:
- The facilities and games of children’s playhouses are diverse and varied. Some may focus on physical coordination and challenges, while some may stimulate creativity and imagination in children. Consumers can start by visiting the venues to learn about their main features, safety measures, age and height restrictions of the facilities, etc. and thereby select a playhouse most suitable for the needs of both parents and children;
- Before visiting, it is advisable to look closely at the venue’s pricing policies and terms of service. For instance, check if adults accompanying children into the facility would entail additional charges, and whether the gear for various activities needs to be rented at extra costs. Regarding the terms and conditions, pay attention to details such as a membership’s validity period, whether specific activities or facilities require advance registration, and if certain zones of the playhouse are designated for children only or require adult supervision;
- Traders may require participants to fill out a waiver or disclaimer form. Traders could also consider disclosing the relevant terms and conditions on their company websites or social media platforms for consumers’ reference. Before signing a form, consumers ought to spend sufficient time reading through the terms, fully assess the risks associated with the activities and understand the scope and content of the waiver or disclaimer. When in doubt, promptly consult the staff, and keep a copy of the documents for future reference in case of disputes;
- As per the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance: “A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence”. As such, despite exemption clauses included in contracts, they may not be grounds for traders to evade their legal liabilities.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/573-playhouse
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.