Where the extra £70 comes from
The private parking sector’s Single Code of Practice (version 1.1, 17 February 2025, foreword updated 13 April 2026) caps a parking charge at £100 (clause 8.2.1) and then says, at clause 9, that where a parking charge becomes overdue a sum of up to £70 may be added, with court costs and statutory enforcement fees separate. So a £100 charge routinely appears as £170 on the debt collector’s letter, the Letter of Claim and the claim form, before the court issue fee and any "legal costs" are added on top.
The Code is written and enforced by the two trade associations, the British Parking Association and the International Parking Community. Membership is what allows an operator to obtain keeper details from the DVLA. The Code is therefore a set of rules the operator has agreed to follow, and a court will take it into account, but it is self-regulation: clause 9 does not make the £70 recoverable in law, and breaking the Code is not in itself a defence. The government’s statutory Code under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 was consulted on in 2025 and would decide the future of these fees; it was not in force at the time of writing.
Against a keeper, the Act caps it out
If the operator is pursuing you as the registered keeper under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, paragraph 4(5) limits the amount recoverable from the keeper to the amount specified in the notice to keeper, less anything already paid. The notice to keeper states the parking charge, typically £100. Anything added afterwards cannot be recovered from the keeper under the Act, whatever the Code says. This is the strongest form of the point and applies only to a keeper who has not admitted being the driver.
Enter the charge on the notice and the amount now demanded. If you are answering as the keeper, the checker shows the paragraph 4(5) cap; as the driver, it shows the added fee as a point to challenge.
Check the amount →Against a driver: challengeable, not automatically disallowed
A driver is liable, if at all, in contract, so the question is whether the £70 was a term of the contract made by parking. Three things to say. First, the signs: if the extra sum was not on the signs, it was not a term, and the operator is put to proof of the sign wording on the date. Second, the nature of the sum: the parking charge itself is said, in Beavis, to cover the cost of running the scheme, so a further sum for "debt recovery" or "administration" looks like the cost of pursuing the claim, which on the small claims track is limited to the fixed amounts in CPR 27.14. Third, proof: the operator should show what the sum was actually for and that it was incurred.
County court judges have in some reported cases disallowed these sums or struck out claims that included them, and you will see those cases named on consumer forums. They are unreported county court decisions, known only from forum-hosted transcripts, and a county court decision binds no other court. CourtPilot’s templates plead the rules and the facts rather than those cases. The honest position is that the fee is challengeable and often reduced, not that it is automatically disallowed.
How to raise it at each stage
Operator appeal or debt letter: ask what the added sum is for, where it appeared in the terms on the signs, and why it is said to be recoverable in addition to the parking charge. As keeper, cite paragraph 4(5).
Letter of Claim reply: dispute the added sum as not a contractual term and request the breakdown and the sign wording (Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, para 4.1).
Defence: deny the sum; say it is not admitted that it formed part of any terms displayed; plead that it is in substance a claim for the costs of pursuing the claim, which CPR 27.14 limits; put the claimant to proof of its contractual basis and that it was incurred; and, as keeper, plead the cap in paragraph 4(5). Make clear the point is without prejudice to your denial of the charge itself.
The added-fee wording for the appeal, the reply form and the defence, with the keeper cap pleaded automatically where it applies. You send and file everything yourself.
- Keeper cap (para 4(5)) where you are the keeper
- Added-fee challenge for drivers
- Document request for the breakdown
- Full and short defence
Frequently asked questions
The letter says the £70 is "as permitted by the Code of Practice". Is that true?
The Code permits up to £70 to be added once a charge is overdue (clause 9). The Code is self-regulation, and permission in the Code does not make the sum a term of your contract or recoverable in law. It is still challengeable.
I am the keeper and have not said who was driving. Can they claim £170 from me?
Not under the Protection of Freedoms Act. Paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 caps the amount recoverable from a keeper at the amount in the notice to keeper. The added £70 is outside that cap.
What about court fees and "solicitors’ costs" on the claim form?
The court issue fee is a separate, recoverable item if the operator wins. Fixed costs on the small claims track are limited by CPR 27.14. Sums labelled "legal costs" or "contractual costs" beyond those are challengeable in the same way as the debt recovery fee.
Does challenging the fee mean I win the case?
No. It reduces what can be recovered; it is not a defence to the parking charge itself. Pair it with the grounds that go to liability: keeper timing, relevant land, signage, payment.
Will the statutory Code ban the fee?
The withdrawn 2022 government Code would have banned it; the 2025 consultation asked whether to keep the £70 cap instead. No statutory Code was in force at the time of writing. Check the current position.
This guide provides general information about UK small claims court procedures and is for educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. CourtPilot is not a law firm and is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The law may have changed since this guide was last updated. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified solicitor or seek help from Citizens Advice.