Can I argue that £100 is disproportionate for a minor overstay?

Post-Beavis this is difficult, but not impossible. The Supreme Court found £85 proportionate in context. However, the court's reasoning depended on the commercial context — a busy retail car park with real turnover concerns. On a deserted private road or in a context with no plausible commercial interest, proportionality may still be arguable. A charge at or below the Code maximum is generally treated as proportionate by adjudicators.

Are there any charges that are automatically disproportionate?

A charge exceeding the BPA or IPC Code of Practice maximum is a per se Code violation and effectively disproportionate as a matter of Code compliance. Beyond that, charges for breaches that caused zero inconvenience and zero loss — such as parking in an empty private car park with no legitimate management interest — are more vulnerable on proportionality grounds than charges in busy commercial locations.

Does the proportionality test apply to council PCNs?

No. Council Penalty Charge Notices are statutory penalties set by secondary legislation, not contractual charges. The penalty rule and proportionality analysis in Beavis/Cavendish do not apply. The PCN amount is fixed by statute and cannot be challenged as disproportionate — you challenge a PCN on factual or procedural grounds instead.

Proportionality Test

By GetRighted Legal Research TeamLast updated July 2026

Summary

Whether a private parking charge is enforceable turns partly on whether it is proportionate: either a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a legitimate deterrent interest. The Supreme Court examined this in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, holding that £85 for an overstay in a free retail car park was enforceable as a deterrent that served a legitimate interest of the landowner. The proportionality test asks: does the charge bear a reasonable relationship to the harm caused or the interest protected? Charges far exceeding any plausible loss or deterrent interest — particularly where no loss can be identified — remain challengeable under the excessive charge defence.

The legal framework — penalty rule and Cavendish

English contract law traditionally struck down 'penalty clauses' — contractual sums that were grossly excessive relative to the innocent party's legitimate interest. The Supreme Court reformulated this rule in Cavendish Square Holdings v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67 (joined with ParkingEye v Beavis). The test is no longer whether the clause is a pre-estimate of loss but whether it serves a legitimate business interest and is proportionate to protecting that interest. For parking, the court found the operator's commercial interest in turnover management was a legitimate interest, and £85 was not out of proportion to protecting it.

Where the proportionality argument still bites

Post-Beavis, blanket 'the charge is a penalty' arguments rarely succeed. However, proportionality remains relevant where: the charge is significantly higher than £100 without a clear justification; the site has no commercial justification for turnover management (e.g., a rarely used private road); the charge is for a trivial or technical breach that caused no inconvenience or loss; or the operator stacks multiple charges for a single continuous stay. The BPA and IPC Codes of Practice cap charges at a maximum figure — charges exceeding the cap are per se disproportionate and should be appealed on that ground.

Code of Practice caps and the charge ceiling

The BPA and IPC Codes set a maximum charge level, currently £100 in most circumstances (higher in London). A charge above the Code maximum is automatically a Code violation and a strong appeal ground. Check the current Code maximum — both the BPA and IPC publish this — and compare it to the charge on your notice. If the charge exceeds the permitted maximum, the appeal is straightforward.

Using the proportionality test in your appeal

✓Check the charge amount against the current BPA/IPC Code of Practice maximum — a charge above the cap is immediately challengeable.
✓Identify the operator's asserted interest: commercial turnover? Access control? Can it be substantiated for this specific site?
✓Assess whether the breach was trivial — a one-minute overstay, or parking in an empty car park at midnight, may be disproportionate to charge at full rate.
✓Check for stacking: if multiple notices were issued for the same vehicle on the same continuous stay, challenge each on proportionality grounds.
✓Reference ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and the relevant Code of Practice charge cap in your submission.

Sources

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
Cavendish Square Holdings BV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67
BPA Code of Practice 2023, Section 19 — charge levels

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I argue that £100 is disproportionate for a minor overstay?: Post-Beavis this is difficult, but not impossible. The Supreme Court found £85 proportionate in context. However, the court's reasoning depended on the commercial context — a busy retail car park with real turnover concerns. On a deserted private road or in a context with no plausible commercial interest, proportionality may still be arguable. A charge at or below the Code maximum is generally treated as proportionate by adjudicators.
Are there any charges that are automatically disproportionate?: A charge exceeding the BPA or IPC Code of Practice maximum is a per se Code violation and effectively disproportionate as a matter of Code compliance. Beyond that, charges for breaches that caused zero inconvenience and zero loss — such as parking in an empty private car park with no legitimate management interest — are more vulnerable on proportionality grounds than charges in busy commercial locations.
Does the proportionality test apply to council PCNs?: No. Council Penalty Charge Notices are statutory penalties set by secondary legislation, not contractual charges. The penalty rule and proportionality analysis in Beavis/Cavendish do not apply. The PCN amount is fixed by statute and cannot be challenged as disproportionate — you challenge a PCN on factual or procedural grounds instead.

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