from the article 
After Mr Beavis first refused to pay the £85 he received a court summons and was told the charge had increased to £150.
He challenged this last May at Cambridge County Court, where a judge ruled the £85 charge was lawful and did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.
^His challenge at the Court of Appeal was against the county court verdict.
Prof Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said it was "deeply frustrating" the case has gone against Mr Beavis.^
The entire case hinges on contract law for a start, which can be the most subtle and nuanced areas of law (snails in lemonade etc.). Hence the reason that discussions in the public arena aren't very useful.
As things stand, unless someone appeals this to the Supreme Court (and despite their "frustrations", the RAC foundation have yet to offer - it's almost like they know they'd lose) the situation is that a motorist parking on private land can be deemed to have entered into a contract to recompense the owners of the land against their losses caused by the motorists presence.
So far, so good. This has always been the case.
However the next step, which the CoA ruled in, is that any claim for such losses must be commensurate with the actual losses. You can't just claim £10,000 because you feel like it. This is where the case "made law" (and incidentally for someone who has just been to court, Mr. Beavis demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of common law), as the court agreed that the £85 ParkingEye charged was reasonable - and therefore due.
To be honest, there's nothing at all contentious in the CoAs ruling. It's entirely consistent with long-established case law. One has to wonder what legal advice the plaintiff received prior to lodging the case. Or indeed whether he ignored it or followed it. The fact that no-one has rushed to offer him a few thousand to appeal his case (or take it pro bono) is highly suggestive that he has no case.