Recoverable damage under the Consumer Protection Act 1987: the product itself is excluded (s.5)
Megan Doyle bought a dehumidifier for £180 to use in her flat. In June 2026 a defect in its wiring caused it to catch fire while she was at home. The dehumidifier was completely destroyed, the fire damaged Megan's sofa, which will cost £900 to replace, and Megan suffered burns to her hand while putting the fire out. She brings a claim against the manufacturer under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and it is accepted that the product was defective.
Which of the following best describes the damage Megan can recover under Part I of the Act?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: Damages for her burns and the sofa, but not for the loss of the dehumidifier itself.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Under CPA 1987 s.5, damage covers personal injury and private property damage over £275, but never loss of or damage to the defective product itself.
Recoverable damage under the Consumer Protection Act 1987: the product itself is excluded (s.5)
Section 5(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 defines damage as death or personal injury or any loss of or damage to any property (including land). Megan's burns are therefore recoverable. Under s.5(2), however, a person is not liable under s.2 for the loss of or any damage to the product itself, so the destroyed dehumidifier is not recoverable under Part I (Megan would need a contractual claim against the seller for that). The sofa is recoverable: it is property of a description ordinarily intended for private use and was intended by Megan mainly for her own private use (s.5(3)), and the £900 claim exceeds the £275 threshold in s.5(4).
Why A is wrong: s.5(2) excludes liability for loss of or damage to the defective product itself, so the £180 dehumidifier cannot be recovered under Part I.
Why C is wrong: s.5(1) includes loss of or damage to property, subject to the limits in s.5(2) to (4), so the sofa is recoverable.
Why D is wrong: £275 is a minimum threshold in s.5(4): no property damages are awarded if the claim does not exceed £275; it is not a cap.
Why E is wrong: liability under s.2 is strict; Megan need prove only damage caused wholly or partly by a defect, not negligence.
That's today's practice done. Another featured question tomorrow.
Related questions
Who is liable for a defective product under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 s.2
Which of the following best describes who is liable to Zara under Part I of the Act?
Rylands v Fletcher: strict liability for property damage but not personal injury
Which of the following best describes Mr Lindqvist's claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
Occupiers' duty to trespassers and no recovery for property damage (Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 s.1(3), (4) and (8))
Which of the following best describes Brightwell Homes Ltd's potential liability to Marcus?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.