Mr Beavis received a demand for £85 – discountable to £50 if paid within 14 days – after parking at Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford on April 15, 2013.

The site offers two free hours of parking and he returned 56 minutes late.

He ignored the first three demands from ParkingEye Ltd after researching his rights on the internet but had no option but to fight his case when he received a court summons.

A close-up of the sign: We revealed how the rogue firms are making tens of millions of pounds from fines handed out to motorists who overstay

Mr Beavis’s case centres on the argument that the ticket was unfair because it was a disproportionate sum for an hour’s parking.

A judge found against him at Cambridge County Court last year, where he was not legally represented. The ruling stated operators like ParkingEye Ltd are entitled to impose charges higher than their outgoings – and more expensive than typical parking charges in the area – to act as a deterrent.

Now A barrister, Sa’ad Hossain QC, has offered to represent Mr Beavis pro bono at the Court of Appeal hearing in London next week .

The 47-year-old added: ‘I’m hoping that parking companies will no longer be allowed to act in the current way.

‘I agree there is a need for parking management. In the place where I overstayed it’s close to the train station and if there was no management system it would be clogged up with commuters. So something is needed but this is not it.’

His wife, Wendy, added the free parking system at Riverside Retail Park was unfair because drivers sometimes spent up to half an hour waiting for a space after driving in.

She added: ‘Barry has put in a hell of a lot of time but he should still pursue it. It’s not just about him – it’s about other people that panic when they get one of those letters.

‘I’m proud of him for standing up to those bullies.’

Mr Beavis’s case has been strengthened by new research by the RAC Foundation which suggests hundreds of thousands of drivers are likely to have been illegally penalised for overstaying their welcome whilst parking on private land – and could be entitled to repayments totalling many tens of millions of pounds.

It says that parking companies are levying huge charges on drivers ‘out of all proportion’ to the losses suffered by landowners as a result of motorists’ actions.

Although the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 banned clamping on private land, drivers who stay longer than the time they have paid for are still likely to receive tickets that demand payments of up to £100, and in some cases significantly more.

In his paper for the RAC Foundation barrister John de Waal QC argues that this is likely to be several times more than compensation for a genuine loss. Mr de Waal, who will NOT be a witness at Mr Beavis’s case, says: ‘Payments at the level that operators presently demand as sanctions are unlikely to count as genuine pre-estimate of loss; they should be seen by the Courts as penalties, which means they are unenforceable.’

If the courts agree with Mr de Waal that many of the tickets issued are ‘extravagant and unconscionable’, drivers are potentially in line to receive tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds in refunds.

Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said: ‘We would like to see this legal argument tested in a higher court so that a binding precedent is set. At the same time we would like the government to do what it should have done at the outset and set out what are reasonable charges.’

A ParkingEye spokesperson said: ‘ParkingEye cannot comment on the outcome of a yet unheard case but remains confident in its position.’ 

Share or comment on this article

Comments (116)

Share what you think

• 
  
  Newest
• 
  
  Oldest
• 
  
  Best rated
• 
  
  Worst rated

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Who is this week’s top commenter?
Find out now

‘ANPR is the lazy man’s way of enforcing parking rules. There are a lot of errors. They should have staff working in their car parks.’

Hugh Bladon of the Alliance of British Drivers said: ‘People will want to get back the money they have wrongly paid to councils, which have been fleecing motorists left, right and centre in every way they can think of.

‘We now need someone to bring a test case to establish the rights of drivers here.’

Many of the town halls that have installed automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems in their car parks are operating outside the law

In his letter to councils, Mr Goodwill said: ‘Local authorities are expected to comply with the relevant legislation and guidance, and are accountable to their electorates.

‘I would hope that you would reconsider any plans to enforce your off-street parking outside the framework.’

He added that council parking should be entirely separate from privately-run parking. The minister told the Mail yesterday: ‘This Government is on the side of the motorist; local authority car parks are on public land and it isn’t right for councils to target unsuspecting motorists with powers that were never intended for this use.’

Last night two councils of at least 30 in England that have ANPR car parks – Welwyn Hatfield and Cheltenham – said they were reviewing their operations.

The RAC Foundation also yesterday challenged the right of private car park operators to impose fines for people who overstay while parking on private land. It said £100 penalties, usually reduced to £50 for payment within two weeks, could be overthrown by the court and declared legally unenforceable.

HOW THEY TRAP YOU: AUTOMATIC NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION

Cameras are linked to computers which recognise numbers and letters on a plate

Automatic number plate recognition allows cameras to read car number plates.

Invented in Britain in the 1970s, its use by police was followed up by private car park operators who use it because cameras do all the work. Fewer, if any, attendants are needed.

Cameras are linked to computers which recognise numbers and letters on a plate, check cars coming into a car park and then recognise it when it leaves.

If the driver has not paid, or the car has been in the car park longer than allowed, the operator sends the number to the DVLA which will send on the details of the owner’s address to the operator.

The operator will send out a penalty notice – which is unofficial but carries a similar name to the statutory penalty charge notices sent out by councils – demanding a fine be paid.

But it is illegal for councils to use it because the system is deemed to be unreliable.

Share or comment on this article

Comments (127)

Share what you think

• 
  
  Newest
• 
  
  Oldest
• 
  
  Best rated
• 
  
  Worst rated

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Who is this week’s top commenter?
Find out now