CRA 2015 ss.62-69 — unfair terms in private parking contracts

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 ss.62-69 governs unfair terms in consumer contracts and notices. Section 62 — a term is unfair if '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'. Section 64 — assessment of fairness is excluded for transparent and prominent core terms (price/main subject) — but the parking charge is NOT a core term; it is ancillary. Section 65 — bar on terms excluding liability for negligence. Section 68 — terms must be transparent and prominent. Schedule 2 — indicative grey list including (item 6) disproportionate compensation, (item 1) excluding consumer's legal rights. Almost every parking operator's charge clause is challengeable on transparency and disproportion.

Legal basis

Consumer Rights Act 2015 ss.61-69, Schedule 2; ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (CRA fairness analysis at [104]-[108])

How to identify this in your case

Any private parking contract with consumer driver; charge clause buried in small print; signage non-prominent; charge escalates significantly post-issue.

Sample appeal wording

Dear [OPERATOR] / [Skeleton Argument extract], The parking charge is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to sections 62-69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015: 1. Section 62: the term causes a significant imbalance contrary to good faith, by imposing a charge of £[AMOUNT] for a contractual breach where the operator's actual loss is negligible. 2. Section 68: the term is not transparent or prominent. The signage at [LOCATION] is [small print / high above sightline / poorly lit / overcrowded with text]. A consumer would not, in the ordinary course, become aware of the charge before the alleged contract was formed. 3. Schedule 2 paragraph 6: a term requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation is indicatively unfair. 4. Schedule 2 paragraph 1: a term excluding or limiting the consumer's legal rights vis-à-vis the trader is indicatively unfair (your appeals process effectively requires waiver of legal rights). 5. Section 65: any term seeking to exclude your liability for negligence (including in handling/towing) is void. Applying Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 [104]-[108], the term must satisfy the statutory test of fairness independently of the penalty doctrine. It does not. The charge is denied. Yours faithfully, [NAME]

Replace [PARKING DATE], [NtK DATE] etc. with your own dates before sending.

Beat It writes this argument automatically

Scan your PCN — our AI checks if this ground applies to your specific ticket, drafts a properly-cited appeal letter, and submits it to the council on your behalf. Only pay if you win.

Scan my ticket

Sources

Consumer Rights Act 2015 ss.61-69, Sch 2
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 paras 104-108