If the charge is £60 because I paid within 14 days, can I still argue it's excessive?

The Beavis proportionality analysis applied to the full £85 charge (equivalent to today's £100 standard). The discounted £60 has been found proportionate in subsequent cases. This ground is weak if you are challenging the discounted charge alone.

The operator is charging £150 — is that automatically invalid?

A charge above £100 independently breaches the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice, Clause 8.2.1. That Code breach is a separate ground for cancellation regardless of proportionality arguments under Beavis.

Does the penalty clause argument still work after Beavis?

The Supreme Court in Beavis confirmed that parking charges are not unenforceable penalty clauses where they serve a legitimate interest. The reformulated test means proportionality to legitimate interest is the question, not loss-estimation. Very high charges at low-demand sites with minimal genuine management need remain challengeable.

Should I raise this ground alongside others?

Yes — always raise it as a secondary ground if the charge appears high. As a primary ground it is weak. As an additional point in an appeal that already has signage or POFA grounds, it adds weight without risk.

Excessive Charge — Disproportionate Penalty

By GetRighted Legal Research TeamLast updated July 2026

Summary

Common law has long held that penalty clauses are unenforceable if they are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss or do not serve a legitimate interest proportionate to the charge. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 reformulated the test: a charge is only valid if the legitimate interest served by the charge is not out of all proportion to the detriment imposed. The Supreme Court found £85 proportionate for a commercial retail car park. However, higher charges, or charges at sites with no genuine parking management need, remain challengeable. Note: this is a weak standalone ground post-Beavis — approximately 20% success as a sole ground. Pair it with stronger defenses.

Legal Basis
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, Penalty Test Reformulation (para 32): 'The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation.' The court found £85 proportionate at a busy retail car park. Common law: penalty clauses are unenforceable if disproportionate to any legitimate interest.

When This Defense Applies

This defense is most viable where the charge is above the BPA/IPC Code maximum of £100 (which itself indicates a Code breach); where the site has no genuine parking management need; or where the charge is clearly disproportionate to any harm caused (e.g., a £100 charge for a 2-minute overstay at an empty car park at midnight). Post-Beavis, charges of £60–100 at commercial sites are generally considered proportionate by POPLA. The defense should almost always be combined with stronger technical grounds.

When to Raise This Ground

Consider raising this if any of the following apply:

✓Charge exceeds £100 — this independently breaches the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice, Clause 8.2.1
✓No 40% early payment discount was offered — required by Code Clause 8.2.2 within 14 days
✓The site is empty or very low occupancy, suggesting no genuine parking pressure
✓The overstay was trivial (minutes) and the charge is the full £100

Win Rate

Approximately 20% success as a sole ground post-Beavis. Used in combination with signage, POFA, or grace period grounds, it can add supporting weight. Do not rely on it alone.

Operator-Specific Patterns

ParkingEye: Standard £100 charge (£60 discounted). Beavis established this is generally proportionate for commercial sites — this makes the excessive charge argument weak against ParkingEye at retail/supermarket locations. The defense is stronger at low-demand sites where the genuine management need is questionable.

Sources

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice 2024, Clause 8.2
Common law — penalty clause doctrine

Frequently Asked Questions

If the charge is £60 because I paid within 14 days, can I still argue it's excessive?: The Beavis proportionality analysis applied to the full £85 charge (equivalent to today's £100 standard). The discounted £60 has been found proportionate in subsequent cases. This ground is weak if you are challenging the discounted charge alone.
The operator is charging £150 — is that automatically invalid?: A charge above £100 independently breaches the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice, Clause 8.2.1. That Code breach is a separate ground for cancellation regardless of proportionality arguments under Beavis.
Does the penalty clause argument still work after Beavis?: The Supreme Court in Beavis confirmed that parking charges are not unenforceable penalty clauses where they serve a legitimate interest. The reformulated test means proportionality to legitimate interest is the question, not loss-estimation. Very high charges at low-demand sites with minimal genuine management need remain challengeable.
Should I raise this ground alongside others?: Yes — always raise it as a secondary ground if the charge appears high. As a primary ground it is weak. As an additional point in an appeal that already has signage or POFA grounds, it adds weight without risk.

Got a ticket? Find out if you can win.

GetRighted checks your situation against all known defenses — free in under 2 minutes.

Check My Ticket

Excessive Charge — Disproportionate Penalty

When This Defense Applies

When to Raise This Ground

Sources

Frequently Asked Questions

Related