CRA 2015 Unfair Term / Disproportionate Charge (post-Beavis)
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s.62), a standard term that, contrary to good faith, causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights to the detriment of the consumer is unfair and not binding. A parking charge disproportionate to the operator's legitimate interest may fall foul of this test and of the Schedule 2, Part 1, para 6 "grey list" (a disproportionately high sum required on the consumer's default). Separately, the penalty rule makes a charge unenforceable where the detriment it imposes is "out of all proportion to any legitimate interest" of the operator (ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, para 32). IMPORTANT: in Beavis the Supreme Court UPHELD an £85 charge in a free car park because the operator had a legitimate interest in managing turnover — so the argument is NOT that a charge is void merely because the operator suffered no financial loss (the absence of a genuine pre-estimate of loss does not, without more, make the charge penal, and it is not the governing or sole test), but that this particular charge is disproportionate to any legitimate interest and/or unfair on its facts. Raise it where the charge is genuinely disproportionate, not as an automatic win.
Legal basis
Consumer Rights Act 2015 ss.62-64 and Schedule 2 Part 1 para 6; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (esp. para 32). (The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 were revoked by the CRA 2015 and apply only to pre-1 Oct 2015 contracts.)
How to identify this in your case
A private parking charge for a free car park, or where the operator suffers no genuine financial loss from the overstay. Compare the charge amount to any plausible loss: if a car park is free, there is no loss of revenue. The operator must be able to show a legitimate interest beyond mere deterrence.
Sample appeal wording
I am writing to dispute parking charge [reference] for £[amount] on consumer law grounds. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.62, a term in a consumer contract is unfair where it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. Under the rule against penalties (as confirmed in Cavendish Square v Makdessi / ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), a sum payable on breach must either be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or be justified by a legitimate interest proportionate to the sum charged. In this case: - The car park is [free / the operator has no commercial interest in the land / there is no revenue lost by my parking] - The charge of £[amount] bears no relationship to any actual or foreseeable loss - There is no legitimate interest sufficient to justify this sum as a deterrent Accordingly, this charge is an unenforceable penalty and an unfair contract term. I decline to pay it.
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 ticketSources
- Consumer Rights Act 2015
- ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
- Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67
Related appeal grounds
- E-scooter rental — not the named hirer (account compromise/family use)
- Enforcement policy not equality-screened (Northern Ireland only)
- Northern Ireland: debt too old to enforce (6-year limit)
- Penalty Rule — Charge Out of Proportion to Legitimate Interest (Beavis 2015)
- Pressure Selling / Aggressive Enforcement — CPRs 2008 Breach
- Private car park signs not in Welsh where required