Towing or storage fee wildly out of proportion to actual costs
When a car is towed and stored, the fee charged must bear a reasonable relationship to what it actually cost the operator to recover and store your vehicle. If the fee is completely out of proportion to those real costs, and the operator cannot show evidence of what it actually cost them, the charge may be legally unenforceable. On top of this, any fee term in a contract with you as a consumer must be clear, prominent, and must not create a significant unfair imbalance against you.
Legal basis
Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (penalty doctrine); Consumer Rights Act 2015 ss.62-69 (unfair terms); ss.61-65 (consumer notices); Schedule 2 (indicative grey list, item 6 — 'disproportionately high sum in compensation')
How to identify this in your case
Towing/storage release fee is £200+; signage does not break down the fee or differentiate from parking charge; operator cannot evidence actual recovery + storage costs; fee charged per day with no cap.
Sample appeal wording
Dear [OPERATOR], Re: Towing/storage fee for vehicle [REG] — Demand for refund of £[AMOUNT] The fee charged is unenforceable for the following independent reasons: 1. Penalty clause. Per Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 a contractual sum payable on breach is unenforceable as a penalty if it is 'out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation' (Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption [32]). The £[AMOUNT] charged bears no relationship to your actual cost of recovery (a few miles tow) and storage (£[X]/day commercial rate) and is therefore extravagant and unconscionable. 2. Unfair term. Under section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 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'. Schedule 2 paragraph 6 to the Act lists as an indicative unfair term any provision 'requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation'. 3. Transparency. Under s.68 CRA 2015 a term must be transparent and prominent. The signage at [LOCATION] [does not display the fee / does not break down the fee / displays it only in small print on a low-down sign]. 4. UTCCRs/CRA Schedule 2 grey list — disproportionately high sum. I require a refund of £[AMOUNT] within 14 days. If you wish to defend the charge, please provide: (a) Itemised breakdown of actual cost of recovery and storage; (b) The contract with the landowner authorising you to charge this sum; (c) Copies of all signage and a positional plan; (d) The data under UK GDPR Article 15. 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 ticketSources
- ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
- Consumer Rights Act 2015 ss.62-69, Sch 2
Related appeal grounds
- CRA 2015 Unfair Term / Disproportionate Charge (post-Beavis)
- 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