Skip to main content

Poor Quality and Arrangements Attract Complaints for Amusement Events and Facilities

  • 2016.02.15

Around the year, there are numerous mega-size fairs and events organised in Hong Kong.  Amusement facilities can even be found inside industrial buildings in recent years.  The quality of these indoor facilities is usually a reflection of the operator's experience and management ability.  Most of the relevant complaints filed with the Consumer Council are related to service quality, while potential risks in safety is another issue of consumer concern. 

The Council found that there are deficiencies in the regulatory control of such amusement facilities in Hong Kong.  Some operators may use "disclaimer" as "shield" to evade liabilities.  Consumers may be misled and give up their right to claim redress. 

By virtue of the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance, a person cannot exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence by simply referring to contract terms or a notice given generally or to individuals.  Besides, some operators state in their terms and conditions that users cannot file complaints with any third-party organisations, such as the Consumer Council. Such terms may be regarded as unconscionable and invalid. 

In a complaint case, the complainant's son sustained a head injury when using an indoor trampoline facility operated by Company A.  The accompanying domestic helper said she was asked to read on computer screen and agree to the Terms of Use in English when buying admission ticket.  She added that Company A did not give her a copy of the Terms, but she recalled that those Terms were purported to exempt Company A from all legal liabilities.  When the son was injured, the facility was crowded with participants.  It was noted that the venue was understaffed without any instructor.

The complainant maintained that Company A had not done enough to provide a safe environment to participants who nonetheless were asked to agree not to seek redress against it in any circumstances.  This is in defiance of consumer rights.  The complainant therefore reported the case to the Council hoping that public attention would be drawn on the safety issues and the related risks. 

After receiving the complaint, the Council approached the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and inquired about the licensing requirement of these facilities. The FEHD responded that trampoline was not a regulated "entertainment" activity under the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance.  It was, in fact, a sports facility for which there were already in place standards and guidelines on proper use set by relevant international sports associations for reference of operators, management or premises owner.  In the United Kingdom, operators of trampoline facilities have to be licensed.   The Council therefore recommends that consideration be given to making amendments to the Ordinance for tighter control. 

Another complaint case concerns a big outdoor slide activity operated by Organiser B.  The complainant purchased a "Night-time Unlimited Slider" ticket at HK$480.  On the day of the event, he started queuing up for his turn to slide at 5pm.  However, at 6pm, staff of the event raised a placard indicating that the daytime ticket holders would be allowed to play until 10pm.  As a result, the number of participant onsite surged.  After lining up for almost 2 hours, the complainant managed to slide once only.  

At 8pm, Organiser B announced that the holders of Day-time tickets had to leave.  The complainant thought that queuing time could then be shortened.  Unexpectedly, at 9pm, Organiser B asked participants to stop queuing.  The complainant immediately complained about the arbitrary changes of the timeslot for daytime ticket holders.  His complaint was not responded by any follow-up as Organiser B explained that it was the time for its staff to leave off work.

The complainant raised the issue with Organiser B again the following day and refused to accept a gift offered as compensation. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint with the Council against Organiser B for improper event arrangement.  The complainant reiterated that the prices of different types of admission tickets and the corresponding timeslots were clearly set out on the website.  However Organiser B kept making changes to the scheduled timeslots.  Although the ticket he had purchased was touted as "unlimited rounds of slides", the complainant managed to slide twice only.  He was treated worse than a 3-round ticket holder who paid HK$320.  The complainant demanded a refund of half of the ticket price.  Eventually, Organiser B agreed.

In another cas, a complainant spent HK$700 to join an evening running activity hosted by Organiser C.  The event website claimed that the running track is "no less than 5 kilometres long".  However, it took the complainant about only 10 minutes to finish the entire course.  According to the record of the complainant's sport-watch, the track distance was only about 800 meters.  The complainant lodged complaint with Organiser C alleging that the description of track distance is incorrect.    Staff of Organiser C offered free admission to the complainant in the next similar activity but the complainant rejected. 

The complainant stated that activities of such kind had been organised around the globe.  Road-closure measures near the running track had been implemented for two months already.  So Organiser C should have enough time to make contingency arrangements.  The complainant found that track distance was far shorter than the "no less than 5 kilometres" as claimed.  Besides, the venue decoration and on-site games arrangements were both below acceptable standard.  He therefore asked for a full refund.  Not long after the Council sent a letter to Organiser C, a full refund was made.

All in all, the Council is of the view that both the organisers of mega-size events and operators of amusement facilities should give top priority to the participants' safety. "Disclaimer" should never be used as a "shield" to evade responsibilities.  Organisers should provide timely updates and put in place contingency measures, such as crowd management, mechanism facilitating information dissemination on bad weather or emergency and refund.  It is obviously also the organiser's responsibility to ensure onsite safety and compliance with all the regulations regarding fire safety, electro-mechanical and land use requirements.

Consumers are advised to pay attention to the following when participating in huge outdoor event and using amusement facilities:

  • Understand the physique required and evaluate the risk of injury before participating. In case of injury, keep receipts and medical certificates as they may be required for making a claim when necessary;
  • Participants should beware of the proportion of staff to participants, whether there will be an onsite instructor and first aid facilities, and whether the organisation has taken out a third-party insurance policy. If the activity is designed for children, parents should conduct site visits in advance for safety evaluation;
  • Read Terms of Use of the activity thoroughly.  Look for information on contingency plans for unexpected weather conditions and emergencies, and related refund policy;
  • Take note of the contact details of the activity organiser, and keep all application and payment records for making claim in case something goes wrong.

The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.