Consumer Rights Act 2015 and exclusion clauses | OCR A-Level Law
For Specification H418
OCR A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) limits the extent to which traders can use contractual wording to exclude or restrict rights and liability in consumer contracts. This Consumer Rights Act 2015 and exclusion clauses A-Level Law revision page covers the statutory rules required by OCR, including protection of implied consumer rights, the fairness test, death or personal injury, Schedule 2 and interpretation of unclear terms. It builds on incorporating exclusion and limitation clauses [Incorporating exclusion and limitation clauses] and common-law regulation of exclusion clauses [Common-law regulation of exclusion clauses].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain how the Consumer Rights Act 2015 regulates exclusion and limitation clauses.
Explain the effect of sections 31, 62, 65 and 69 CRA 2015 at the level required by OCR.
Explain the relevance of Schedule 2 to potentially unfair consumer terms.
Apply CRA rules to exclusion clauses in consumer scenarios.
Determine whether a trader may potentially rely on an exclusion or limitation clause.
Distinguish consumer regulation under the CRA from non-consumer regulation under UCTA 1977.
Revision Notes 📚
Consumer Rights Act 2015 and exclusion clauses A-Level Law revision: OCR scope
OCR requires students to study:
exclusion and limitation clauses;
common-law regulation of exclusion clauses;
statutory regulation of exclusion clauses;
regulation of exclusion clauses in non-consumer contracts;
the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
OCR assessment materials provide detailed CRA rules for consumer exclusion clauses, including:
s.31, protection of statutory implied terms concerning goods;
s.62, unfair terms do not bind a consumer;
s.62(4), the statutory unfairness test;
s.65, liability for death or personal injury cannot be excluded;
Schedule 2, examples of terms which may be regarded as unfair;
s.69, interpretation of unclear consumer terms.
These rules should be applied only after identifying that the facts involve the appropriate consumer contractual context.
The exclusion-clause analysis
A consumer exclusion-clause problem may require several separate stages.
Stage 1: incorporation
Ask:
Did the clause become part of the contract?
Relevant principles include:
signature;
notice before acceptance;
prominence of harsh or unusual terms;
course of dealings.
These rules were studied in incorporating exclusion and limitation clauses [Incorporating exclusion and limitation clauses].
Stage 2: interpretation
Ask:
Does the wording actually cover the liability which has arisen?
This involves common-law interpretation and is covered in common-law regulation of exclusion clauses [Common-law regulation of exclusion clauses].
Stage 3: statutory regulation
Ask:
Does the Consumer Rights Act 2015 allow the trader to rely on the term?
This lesson focuses on that third stage.
📌 A clause can therefore be incorporated and clearly worded, yet still fail because the CRA prevents or limits its operation.
Section 31: statutory rights relating to goods cannot be excluded
OCR's 2025 mark scheme identifies s.31 CRA 2015 as an important restriction on consumer exclusion clauses.
Section 31 prevents a trader from excluding liability for breach of the statutory implied terms relating to consumer goods, including the requirements considered in Consumer Rights Act 2015 and implied terms [Consumer Rights Act 2015 and implied terms].
These include:
s.9, goods must be of satisfactory quality;
s.10, goods must be fit for purpose;
s.11, goods must be as described.
The practical effect is important:
A trader cannot simply place a term in a consumer contract saying that it accepts no responsibility if the goods fail to satisfy these statutory requirements.
Applying s.31
Imagine a consumer buys a waterproof coat from a shop.
The shop's contract contains a clause stating:
"We accept no liability if goods supplied are defective or unsuitable for their intended purpose."
The coat is defective and fails during normal use.
The analysis should identify:
the transaction is a consumer contract;
the quality of the goods raises the CRA implied terms;
the exclusion clause attempts to remove the consumer's statutory rights;
s.31 prevents the trader excluding liability for those implied terms.
The trader therefore cannot use the clause to remove the consumer's protection relating to the statutory quality requirements.
OCR applied this principle in its 2025 mark scheme to a poor-quality consumer product. The trader's exclusion clause could not remove liability for breach of the CRA implied terms.
Section 62: unfair terms do not bind consumers
One of the central OCR provisions is s.62 CRA 2015.
The rule is:
An unfair term does not bind the consumer.
OCR has tested this rule directly in both 2022 and 2025 assessment material.This means that even where a term has been incorporated into the agreement, the trader may be unable to rely on it if the term is unfair under the CRA.
The statutory question is therefore separate from incorporation.
Section 62(4): what makes a term unfair?
OCR specifically requires the test in s.62(4).
A term is unfair where, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.
There are three important ideas to remember:
good faith;
significant imbalance;
detriment to the consumer.
A good exam answer should apply these ideas to the facts rather than simply state:
"The term is unfair."
Significant imbalance
An exclusion clause may create a significant imbalance if it gives the trader extensive protection while removing important rights from the consumer.
For example:
the consumer must perform all contractual obligations;
the trader seeks to accept almost no responsibility if it performs badly.
This can support an argument that the parties' rights and obligations have become seriously unbalanced.
In the 2022 mark scheme, OCR suggested that a clause which removed a customer's rights without good reason or anything meaningful in return could be treated as unfair under s.62.
Detriment to the consumer
The imbalance must operate to the detriment of the consumer.
In a scenario, identify exactly how the term disadvantages the consumer.
For example:
The exclusion clause prevents the consumer from obtaining compensation despite loss caused by the trader's conduct.
or:
The term imposes a substantial payment obligation on the consumer for a relatively limited breach.
Apply the statutory test to the facts rather than merely repeating its wording.
Schedule 2: potentially unfair terms
OCR assessment materials also require awareness of Schedule 2 CRA 2015.
Schedule 2 contains examples of terms which may be regarded as unfair. OCR examiner materials sometimes refer to this as the grey list.
For OCR purposes, two examples are especially useful because they have appeared in assessment materials:
disproportionate charges imposed on consumers;
terms binding consumers where they have not had an appropriate opportunity to become acquainted with them before contracting.
Schedule 2 is useful evidence when applying s.62, but you should still analyse the term in the factual scenario.
Disproportionate charges
A contractual term may require a consumer to pay a substantial amount following a relatively limited breach.
In the 2022 assessment, OCR used a £100 parking charge scenario.
The mark scheme invited candidates to consider:
whether the term created a disproportionate advantage for the trader;
whether it fell within Schedule 2;
whether the charge was nevertheless justifiable in the circumstances.
This shows that the word "large" does not automatically mean "unfair".
The purpose and effect of the term must be considered.
ParkingEye v Beavis
OCR identifies ParkingEye v Beavis in connection with consumer parking charges.
A £100 parking charge was not considered contrary to the requirement of good faith in the circumstances considered by the court.
For OCR revision, the important lesson is:
A substantial contractual charge is not automatically unfair simply because it is financially significant.
In an examination scenario, consider why the charge exists.
For example, a charge intended to deter inappropriate parking may potentially be justified.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme accepted an argument that a harsh parking charge could still be reasonable where it served the purpose of preventing inappropriate parking.
Using ParkingEye in an exam
Do not write:
"ParkingEye v Beavis means £100 charges are always fair."
Instead write:
"ParkingEye v Beavis demonstrates that a substantial parking charge is not automatically contrary to good faith. The purpose and effect of the particular charge should be considered."
Section 65: death and personal injury
OCR repeatedly identifies s.65 CRA 2015 as a crucial statutory rule.
Under s.65:
A trader cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence.
This provides particularly strong consumer protection.
If a scenario involves:
negligence;
personal injury or death;
an exclusion clause attempting to remove the trader's liability;
s.65 should immediately be considered.
Applying s.65
Suppose a consumer pays to visit an attraction.
The contract contains the term:
"The attraction accepts no liability for injuries suffered by visitors."
The trader negligently leaves a dangerous obstruction where visitors are expected to walk. A consumer is injured.
Even if the exclusion clause:
was properly incorporated;
clearly covers injuries;
the CRA still provides another stage of regulation.
Under s.65, liability for personal injury caused by negligence cannot be excluded.
The clause therefore cannot protect the trader from that liability.
OCR applied s.65 directly to an injury caused by alleged negligence at a visitor attraction in its 2025 mark scheme.
Personal injury compared with property damage
Do not automatically apply s.65 to every type of loss.
The provision identified by OCR specifically concerns:
death;
personal injury;
arising from negligence.
If the consumer's property has been damaged instead, you should consider the other relevant controls, such as:
whether the wording covers the damage;
s.62 fairness;
other applicable CRA provisions.
This distinction featured in OCR's 2022 car-park scenario, where personal injury and damage to a vehicle raised related but distinct exclusion-clause issues.
Section 69: unclear wording
OCR's 2025 mark scheme expressly identifies s.69 CRA 2015 alongside the principle that vague or overly wide exclusion wording should not be interpreted in favour of the trader.
For revision purposes:
Where a consumer term is ambiguous, the interpretation which favours the consumer should be preferred.
This connects statutory consumer protection with the interpretation issues already studied in common-law regulation of exclusion clauses [Common-law regulation of exclusion clauses].
Example
A trader uses a clause stating:
"We are not liable for any problems with products."
A customer's goods are defective.
The clause is extremely vague.
The trader should not simply be allowed to give "any problems" the broadest possible interpretation after the dispute arises.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme used this type of reasoning where an exclusion clause failed to specify clearly what losses were being excluded.
Section 68 and clear consumer terms
OCR's 2023 mark scheme also identifies s.68 CRA 2015 alongside the requirement for potentially harsh or unusual consumer terms to be clearly presented.
For this course, remember the practical point:
Consumer contractual terms should be presented clearly rather than hidden or obscured.
This can interact with the earlier incorporation rules, particularly where a burdensome term appears in lengthy contractual wording.
However, do not confuse the stages:
common-law incorporation asks whether the term entered the contract;
the CRA provides additional statutory consumer protection.
CRA implied rights and exclusion clauses
Lesson 216 considered the statutory terms contained in consumer contracts in Consumer Rights Act 2015 and implied terms [Consumer Rights Act 2015 and implied terms].
For goods, OCR specifically identifies:
s.9 satisfactory quality;
s.10 fit for purpose;
s.11 as described.
When analysing an exclusion clause, there may therefore be two linked questions:
Has a statutory consumer term been breached?
For example:
Are the goods of satisfactory quality?
Then:
Is the trader trying to exclude responsibility for that breach?
If yes:
s.31 becomes important because the trader cannot simply exclude the protected implied terms.
This is how the lessons fit together.
Worked scenario: defective goods and an exclusion clause
Hannah buys a new waterproof jacket from OutdoorStore.
Its contract states:
"OutdoorStore accepts no responsibility if products are defective or unsuitable for the buyer's requirements."
The jacket has a manufacturing defect and allows water through immediately.
Step 1: consumer context
Hannah is purchasing goods as a consumer from a trader.
The CRA is therefore the relevant statutory regime.
Step 2: statutory implied term
The defective jacket raises the requirement of satisfactory quality under s.9.
Step 3: attempted exclusion
The trader's clause attempts to remove responsibility for defective goods.
Step 4: s.31
Section 31 prevents the trader from excluding the relevant CRA implied terms concerning goods.
Conclusion
OutdoorStore cannot rely on the exclusion clause to remove Hannah's statutory protection concerning satisfactory quality.
Section 62 and exclusion clauses
Not every consumer exclusion-clause problem falls neatly within s.31 or s.65.
Where a trader attempts to impose a broader exclusion or limitation, consider s.62.
Ask:
What right does the trader gain?
What right does the consumer lose?
Is there a significant imbalance?
Does it operate to the consumer's detriment?
Is the term contrary to the requirement of good faith?
Does Schedule 2 provide a relevant example?
You should then reach a reasoned conclusion.
Worked scenario: broad exclusion of property damage
LeisureCo's consumer contract states:
"LeisureCo will never be responsible for damage to customers' belongings for any reason."
A staff member carelessly damages a customer's expensive camera.
Assume the clause has been properly incorporated and is sufficiently clear.
Application
Because the loss is property damage rather than personal injury, s.65 is not the main provision.
However, s.62 may be relevant.
The clause removes a potentially important consumer right while giving LeisureCo extremely broad protection.
There is therefore an argument that it creates a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the consumer's detriment.
Conclusion
The exclusion may be unfair under s.62 and, if so, would not bind the consumer.
A strong answer should explain the imbalance rather than simply label the term unfair.
Consumer and non-consumer regulation
One of the most important OCR distinctions is between the CRA and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 [Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977].
OCR's 2025 examiner report explains that:
the CRA regulates consumer contracts;
UCTA predominantly regulates business-to-business contracts;
students should know both because either can appear in an OCR scenario.
Consumer scenario
A private customer buys goods or services from a trader.
→ CRA 2015
Business-to-business scenario
Two companies contract commercially.
→ consider UCTA 1977
This statutory distinction must be made before applying specific exclusion-clause provisions.
CRA versus UCTA
Consumer Rights Act 2015 | Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 |
OCR applies it to consumer contracts | OCR predominantly associates it with business-to-business contracts |
Includes s.31 | Separate non-consumer statutory regime |
Includes s.62 fairness protection | Do not substitute CRA rules automatically |
Includes s.65 protection for death or personal injury | Relevant where the facts are non-consumer |
Includes Schedule 2 | Separate statutory framework |
Includes s.69 interpretation rule | Select only when the contractual context requires it |
OCR examiner reports from both 2022 and 2025 warn students about confusing these two statutes.
A complete consumer exclusion-clause method
Use this method in a scenario.
Step 1: establish the consumer context
Identify that the agreement is between a trader and consumer.
Do not use UCTA merely because an exclusion clause is present.
Step 2: consider incorporation
Use the rules from incorporating exclusion and limitation clauses [Incorporating exclusion and limitation clauses].
Ask:
Were the terms available before acceptance?
Was a contractual document signed?
Was a harsh or unusual term sufficiently prominent?
Is there a relevant course of dealings?
Step 3: consider interpretation
Ask whether the clause clearly covers the liability.
Where the wording is unclear, consider s.69 and the restrictive approach studied in common-law regulation of exclusion clauses [Common-law regulation of exclusion clauses].
Step 4: identify the relevant CRA restriction
Is the trader excluding statutory rights concerning goods?
→ Consider s.31
Is the trader excluding liability for negligent death or personal injury?
→ Apply s.65
Is the term potentially unfair?
→ Apply s.62 and s.62(4)
Does it resemble an example of an unfair term?
→ Consider Schedule 2
Step 5: reach a separate conclusion
State clearly whether the trader can rely on the clause.
Do not write only:
"The CRA applies."
Explain which provision applies and why.
Worked synoptic scenario
AdventureWorld sells online tickets directly to consumers.
Customers must agree to three terms:
Term A: AdventureWorld accepts no liability for personal injury caused by the negligence of its staff.
Term B: AdventureWorld accepts no responsibility if goods bought in its shop are defective.
Term C: Any visitor remaining in the car park ten minutes after their paid period ends must pay £100.
Term A: injury
Section 65 applies.
A trader cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence.
Conclusion: AdventureWorld cannot rely on Term A to escape negligent personal-injury liability.
Term B: defective goods
The clause attempts to exclude statutory rights relating to consumer goods.
Section 31 prevents the trader excluding the CRA implied terms such as satisfactory quality.
Conclusion: AdventureWorld cannot use Term B to remove those statutory consumer rights.
Term C: £100 charge
The charge should be considered under s.62.
Ask whether:
it creates a significant imbalance;
it disadvantages the consumer;
it is contrary to good faith;
Schedule 2 is relevant;
the amount can nevertheless be justified.
ParkingEye v Beavis demonstrates that a substantial parking charge is not automatically unfair where it serves a legitimate contractual purpose.
Conclusion: The result depends on the factual justification for the charge, so a reasoned argument is required.
A quick CRA decision tree
Consumer contract containing exclusion or limitation clause
↓
Attempt to exclude CRA rights relating to consumer goods?
Yes → s.31, cannot exclude the protected implied terms
↓
Negligence causing death or personal injury?
Yes → s.65, liability cannot be excluded
↓
Potentially unfair contractual term?
Yes → s.62
Ask:
good faith?
significant imbalance?
consumer detriment?
Schedule 2?
↓
Ambiguous wording?
Yes → s.69, interpret in favour of the consumer
↓
Reach a supported conclusion on whether the trader may rely on the clause
The CRA does not replace common-law rules
Do not think that a consumer problem requires only the CRA.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme expected students to combine:
incorporation;
interpretation;
statutory CRA regulation.
For example, a trader might fail because:
the clause was never properly incorporated;
the clause does not clearly cover the loss;
the CRA prevents the term operating.
A strong answer works through these issues methodically.
From statutory regulation to evaluation
The statutory rules provide significant protection to consumers, but OCR also requires critical evaluation of exclusion clauses.
The next stage is evaluating exclusion clauses [Evaluating exclusion clauses], where you will assess the effectiveness of:
incorporation rules;
common-law interpretation;
CRA consumer protection;
non-consumer statutory controls;
possible reform.
For this lesson, focus on accurate application of the statutory consumer rules.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Unfair term | A consumer term which satisfies the statutory test of unfairness under s.62 CRA 2015 and therefore does not bind the consumer. | Apply good faith, significant imbalance and consumer detriment to a disputed clause. |
Good faith | Part of the s.62(4) test used when assessing whether a consumer contractual term is unfair. | Consider whether the trader's term operates fairly within the contractual relationship. |
Significant imbalance | A serious imbalance between the parties' contractual rights and obligations which disadvantages the consumer. | Explain why an exclusion clause gives excessive protection to the trader. |
Schedule 2 | A CRA list containing examples of contractual terms which may be regarded as unfair. | Support an application concerning disproportionate charges or other potentially unfair terms. |
Consumer contract | A contractual context in which the CRA consumer protections are relevant. | Distinguish CRA regulation from non-consumer regulation under UCTA. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Know the specific CRA sections. The 2025 examiner report praised candidates who could identify individual statutory provisions and apply them accurately to exclusion-clause scenarios.
Examiner hint: Do not confuse the CRA with UCTA. OCR's 2025 report states that the CRA deals with consumer contracts while UCTA predominantly concerns business-to-business contracts. In the consumer question set that year, only CRA regulation was credited.
Examiner hint: Revise s.62 properly. OCR's 2022 report found that candidates generally knew the rule preventing exclusion of death or personal-injury liability, but fewer could accurately explain the statutory control of unfair terms under s.62.
Examiner hint: Analyse the facts rather than just stating that a clause is unfair. A stronger answer explains why the provision creates a significant imbalance or why the trader may have a legitimate justification for the term.
Examiner hint: Keep classification separate from exclusion-clause regulation. OCR's 2022 report specifically found that discussion of conditions, warranties and innominate terms did not answer a question concerning exclusion clauses.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Using UCTA in a consumer scenario
Why this is incorrect: OCR examiner reports distinguish CRA consumer regulation from UCTA's predominantly business-to-business role.
How to improve: Identify the contractual relationship first. If the question clearly involves a trader and consumer, use the CRA provisions.
Mistake: Saying every harsh term is automatically unfair
Why this is incorrect: Section 62 requires application of the statutory unfairness test.
A substantial term may sometimes be justified, as illustrated by ParkingEye v Beavis.
How to improve: Discuss:
good faith;
significant imbalance;
detriment;
the purpose of the term.
Mistake: Saying a £100 parking charge must be unfair
Why this is incorrect: OCR specifically identifies ParkingEye v Beavis, where a £100 parking charge was not contrary to good faith in the circumstances.
How to improve: Consider why the charge exists rather than deciding solely from its amount.
Mistake: Forgetting s.31 when defective goods are involved
Why this is incorrect: A trader cannot simply exclude the statutory implied rights concerning consumer goods.
How to improve: Where an exclusion clause relates to product quality, purpose or description, consider s.31 alongside the implied terms studied previously.
Mistake: Applying s.65 to property damage
Why this is incorrect: The OCR rule under s.65 concerns death or personal injury caused by negligence.
How to improve: For property loss, consider the other applicable controls, including interpretation and s.62.
Mistake: Assuming incorporation makes the clause enforceable
Why this is incorrect: Incorporation is only the first stage.
How to improve: Use:
incorporation → interpretation → CRA regulation
Mistake: Giving one conclusion for several disputed clauses
Why this loses marks: Different clauses may be controlled by different sections.
How to improve: Deal separately with:
s.31;
s.62;
s.65;
s.69;
where the facts require them.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
State the effect of s.62 Consumer Rights Act 2015 on an unfair contractual term. [1 mark]
Question 2
Explain the test for unfairness contained in s.62(4) CRA 2015. [4 marks]
Question 3
Explain the effect of s.65 CRA 2015 on a term seeking to exclude liability for personal injury caused by negligence. [3 marks]
Question 4
A shop sells Callum a new electric heater. Its contract states that the shop accepts no responsibility if any goods it sells are defective. The heater has a serious manufacturing defect.
Explain the relevance of s.31 CRA 2015. [5 marks]
Question 5
A leisure centre's consumer contract states:
"The centre accepts no liability if customers are injured through the negligence of its employees."
An employee negligently leaves equipment across a walkway and Ruby is injured.
Advise whether the leisure centre can rely on the clause. [5 marks]
Question 6
A private parking company requires consumers to pay £100 if they remain in the car park beyond the period they have purchased.
Explain how s.62 CRA 2015, Schedule 2 and ParkingEye v Beavis may be relevant when deciding whether the term binds the consumer. [6 marks]
Question 7
Explain two differences between CRA regulation of consumer exclusion clauses and the OCR role of UCTA 1977 in non-consumer contracts. [4 marks]
Question 8
SkyTrail Ltd operates an outdoor visitor attraction. Customers buying tickets for personal use must accept its contractual terms online.
Three provisions are disputed:
Term A: "SkyTrail accepts no liability for personal injury caused by negligence." A member of staff negligently leaves equipment on a path and Mia is injured.
Term B: "SkyTrail accepts no responsibility for the quality or suitability of goods purchased from its shop." Noah buys a defective waterproof bag which is not suitable for the purpose he explained to the salesperson.
Term C: A consumer who parks beyond the period purchased must pay £120. SkyTrail says this is necessary to prevent customers occupying limited spaces all day.
Assume the terms have been incorporated. Advise whether SkyTrail may rely on each term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. [20 marks]
Indicative answers and mark scheme
Question 1
1 mark for stating:
An unfair term does not bind the consumer under s.62 CRA 2015.
Question 2
Award up to 4 marks for explaining that under s.62(4):
the term must be considered contrary to the requirement of good faith;
it must cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations;
the imbalance must operate to the detriment of the consumer;
the facts should be considered when applying these elements.
Question 3
Award up to 3 marks for explaining that:
s.65 concerns negligence;
liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence cannot be excluded;
a trader cannot therefore rely on a contractual exclusion clause to escape this liability.
Question 4
Relevant points include:
Callum is buying consumer goods from a trader;
the goods appear defective;
s.9 concerning satisfactory quality may therefore be relevant;
the contractual provision attempts to exclude the trader's responsibility for defective consumer goods;
under s.31, the protected implied terms concerning the goods cannot be excluded;
the shop is therefore unable to use this clause to remove Callum's relevant statutory rights.
Award up to 5 marks.
Question 5
Relevant points include:
Ruby is in a consumer contractual relationship with the leisure centre;
the employee has acted negligently;
Ruby has suffered personal injury;
the clause specifically attempts to exclude liability for negligent personal injury;
under s.65 CRA 2015, this liability cannot be excluded;
the leisure centre therefore cannot rely on the clause to prevent Ruby's claim.
Award up to 5 marks.
Question 6
Relevant points include:
s.62 provides that an unfair term does not bind the consumer;
s.62(4) requires consideration of good faith, significant imbalance and detriment;
a £100 charge could be considered substantial and Schedule 2 may be relevant to disproportionate charges;
however, the amount alone does not establish unfairness;
ParkingEye v Beavis demonstrates that a £100 parking charge was not contrary to good faith in its circumstances;
a charge serving a genuine purpose such as controlling parking may therefore potentially be justified;
a reasoned conclusion should depend on the particular facts.
Award up to 6 marks.
Question 7
Award up to 4 marks for developed distinctions such as:
the CRA applies to the consumer exclusion-clause scenarios identified by OCR;
UCTA predominantly concerns business-to-business or other relevant non-consumer contracts;
the CRA includes consumer controls such as s.62 and s.65;
the correct statute must therefore be selected from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than simply from the existence of an exclusion clause.
Question 8
A strong response should treat each term separately.
Term A: negligent personal injury
Relevant points:
this is a consumer contract;
the facts establish negligence;
Mia has suffered personal injury;
s.65 CRA 2015 prevents liability for personal injury caused by negligence being excluded;
the fact that the term was incorporated does not change the statutory restriction.
Conclusion: SkyTrail cannot rely on Term A to exclude its negligent personal-injury liability.
Term B: quality and fitness of consumer goods
Relevant points:
Noah purchased goods from SkyTrail as a consumer;
the bag is defective, raising s.9 satisfactory quality;
Noah also made his intended purpose known, raising s.10 fitness for purpose;
Term B seeks to remove liability for exactly these statutory consumer rights;
s.31 prevents exclusion of the relevant implied terms.
Conclusion: SkyTrail cannot rely on Term B to remove Noah's CRA rights relating to the defective and unsuitable bag.
Term C: £120 parking charge
Relevant points:
the term should be considered under s.62;
apply the s.62(4) concepts of good faith, significant imbalance and consumer detriment;
the charge is substantial;
Schedule 2 may be relevant to potentially disproportionate financial terms;
however, SkyTrail has identified a purpose, stopping customers occupying scarce spaces for excessive periods;
ParkingEye v Beavis demonstrates that a substantial parking charge is not automatically unfair;
both the size of the charge and the legitimate purpose claimed by SkyTrail should therefore be weighed.
Conclusion: A reasoned answer could reach either conclusion depending on how convincing SkyTrail's justification appears. The strongest answer should explain why the term does or does not create an unfair imbalance rather than deciding from the £120 figure alone.
Overall exam approach
For a high-level response:
identify the CRA because all three agreements are consumer contracts;
apply a different statutory rule to each factual problem;
use s.65 for negligent personal injury;
use s.31 for exclusion of statutory goods rights;
use s.62 and Schedule 2 for the parking charge;
use ParkingEye v Beavis accurately rather than treating it as a rule that every parking charge is fair;
reach a clear conclusion on each term.
OCR's 2025 examiner report specifically praised candidates who knew the relevant CRA section numbers and applied them accurately, while warning against confusing the CRA with UCTA.
Comments