Parish council liability?

[steve99]

Next to my house the Parish council have setup a great little children's play area, and after some unlawful activity I'm wondering about their liability and how to proceed.

I'll start by saying that the children's play area is great; it has a nice summerhouse to sit in, swings, and other similar family stuff - it's a great addition to the village.
Months ago I had to call the police because of kids climbing onto the summerhouse and firing airguns into my garden. The shooting stopped but teenagers still play on the roof of the summerhouse - its disconcerting to have people that have shot at your house on a roof meters away from your garden.
Today some of the play area has been smashed up, and my fence has been spray-painted.
This is a small village and definitely not somewhere you’d go for a night out, this will be local teenagers or their friends.

Now I might sound mean with this, but I don't care why they are damaging things (boredom?), they’re not my kids and I don’t want to pay for their actions.
What are the parish council's responsibilities and liability in this? They make the park available and it is their guests that are causing this issue.

[fredpuli47]

You'll be asking next what their liability is for kids firing airguns in their streets LOL
None. That they happened to have provided a place in which someone chooses to commit, say, murder or any other unlawful activity does not magically make them liable for that activity or its consequences.Put another, and more practical. way: What steps do you suggest they take to minimize or prevent this? Make it impossible for anyone to climb on the roof? The kids don't need to do that to fire guns per se. As it happens, they are at more risk of being sued under Occupiers' Liability if the kids climb and hurt themselves, the roof being accessible and the kind of thing which is a natural attraction to children to climb.You might try pointing that out.

[steve99]

I hadn't assumed the council responsible, but I had hoped that they are.

While the highways authority provide roads the throwing of stones is not an intended purpose of the road, and due to the nature of roads in general this is not something that could reasonably be prevented. If a road being used for its intended purpose were to cause an issue I would expect reasonable steps to be taken.

While I accept that vandalism to surrounding property is not an intended purpose of a play area or a summerhouse, I think it is reasonable that a small amount of damage could be foreseen if this area is made available for teenagers to gather at night.
I would look for the council to minimise the possibility of damage or to discourage use that is likely to result in damage, and if they do not I had hoped they held some responsibility for the resulting damage.

I see a number of ways that damage could be minimised.
The park is open land - it could be fenced and access restricted at certain times of day. The play area could be moved away from homes. CCTV or other electronic security measures could be installed. The summerhouse could be replaced with a securable building preventing people gathering in it at night.

They did not happen to provide a place that someone choose to commit an unlikely act, this is a foreseeable act and directly related to the purpose of the area.

Thanks for the advice re occupiers' liability btw.

[fredpuli47]

I sit on a Parish Council. You'd be amazed at what we have to consider. We have to have our play area inspected by a specialist every so often to ensure that nothing could present a danger. That's understandable, but the other safety inspections we have go beyond sense.For example, we installed a gate on a public path. The gate had to be contrived so that a contortionist with determination, and no common sense, could get his hand caught whilst stretching about 3 metres across it. We couldn't see how the gate could present a risk , even minimal, in any other circumstances. But, once the supposed risk had been mentioned we knew that insurers would leap at the chance of denying any other valid claim on the basis we hadn't disclosed this supposed risk and attended to it (what lawyers call the uberrimae fidei rule, about disclosure) . So far the mechanics of avoiding it have defeated us, but we'll keep trying!

[fredpuli47]

"could NOT get his hand" We did think of planning for his doing so and contriving the gate fitting for that very purpose but no, that was my omitting a 'not'.

[steve99]

Ahhh well, thanks for your replies.
You are right, I am being a bit grumpy, in my defence I'm probably just annoyed about the fence. While I'd prefer that you weren't right your replies make sense and I think I'd better leave this alone and see if it goes away on its own.

Thanks for the replies though.