article: Barry Beavis, 48, lost his case at the Court of Appeal . Millions of motorists face spiralling parking fines after judges ruled yesterday that £85 was not an 'excessively high' penalty for staying too long in a car park. Barry Beavis launched a legal bid to overturn his fine, saying it was unfair, disproportionate and unenforceable. But in a landmark ruling, appeal court judges decided the size of the fine was neither 'extravagant or unconscionable'. Motoring groups reacted in fury to the decision, accusing the judges – who are thought to earn more than £200,000 a year – of being 'out of touch'. Mr Beavis, from Chelmsford, Essex, had gone to court to fight what he called the 'bullying and threatening' private car park firms which heavily penalise motorists who overstay in parking spaces. The 48-year-old, who runs a fish and chip shop, got the £85 fine in April 2013 when he overstayed by 56 minutes in a private car park at the Riverside Retail park in Chelmsford. The car park, run by parking firm ParkingEye Ltd, allowed two hours of free parking, but Mr Beavis stayed for three. He claimed the £85 charge against him was disproportionate and vowed to fight the companies who 'extort money by threatening and bullying people into paying up'. But yesterday judges said the fine was enforceable because it was not 'excessively high'. Mr Beavis said he was 'absolutely furious' and planned to appeal. Meanwhile motoring groups said the ruling was a victory for the parking cowboys and would open the floodgates for unscrupulous profit-hungry firms 'falling over themselves' to ramp up the already hefty penalties they impose. Ian Taylor, of the Alliance of British Drivers, said: 'I think the judges are somewhat out of touch if they think £85 isn't extravagant. 'An £85 penalty may not seem much to a rich lawyer – it's probably less than many charge for an hour. But for the average hard-pressed motorist trying to make ends meet, it's a very heavy and unfair burden.' Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said the ruling would hand parking firms a 'blank cheque' to milk drivers, adding: 'This decision could cost motorists millions. 'If judges believe £85 is not an extravagant amount then what is? £100? £200? Our fear is that parking firms will now be falling over themselves to raise their penalty charges and punish drivers.' Mr Beavis had parked his car at the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford, pictured above, on April 15, 2013, . The retail site, pictured above, offers two free hours of parking and Mr Beavis was fined after he returned 56 minutes late . Richard Lloyd, executive director of consumer watchdog Which?, said: 'We are concerned that this decision waters down the law on penalty charges and may encourage excessive default charges.' And AA president Edmund King said: 'Britain's motorists really will think judges are out of touch with everyday life if they consider £85 to be a reasonable amount of money for a parking penalty. £85 may not seem much to highly paid lawyers but it represents a great deal of money to cash-strapped motorists.' He added: 'This is a licence to print money for people who have now been handed an open cheque-book and invited to make up the figures as they like.' Speaking outside of the Court of Appeal Mr Beavis said he would now be taking the case to the Supreme Court . Parking trap: Many motorists face steep fines for running a few minutes over their allotted time . The three judges who unanimously dismissed the challenge – Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Patten and Sir Timothy Lloyd – are all thought to earn around £202,000 a year. Yesterday ParkingEye welcomed the judgment, saying it gave 'clarity to motorists and the parking industry' and 'further confirms that our parking charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable'. But speaking outside court, Mr Beavis said: 'These firms are not run on a moral basis, they're only out to make as much money as they can, to profiteer from unsuspecting motorists. I am utterly furious and will continue the fight.' Mr Beavis's action comes after the Daily Mail revealed how rogue firms are making millions of pounds from fines handed to motorists who overstay – sometimes for only a few minutes – in car parks at hospitals, railway stations and shopping centres. Cancer sufferers and patients whose treatments have over-run are among those who have been ripped off by the parking firms. Three judges unanimously dismissed his challenge at the Court of Appeal, saying the amount he was charged 'is not extravagant or unconscionable'.
highlights: Barry Beavis took on private car park operators over 'unfair' charges .
  48-year-old tried to challenge £85 fine that he claimed was unjust .
  Left 'furious' after losing the landmark legal bid at the High Court .
  Judges found the charge was 'not extravagant or unconscionable'
prediction: Barry Beavis , 48, lost his case at the Court of Appeal . 
   ruled 
   £ 85 was not 
   excessively high' penalty for 
   to 
   fine 
   it was unfair 
   disproportionate and 
   But in a 
   ruling 
   appeal court judges decided 
   fine 
  ' extravagant or unconscionable 
   Motoring groups 
   to 
   decision 
   £ 
   out of touch 
   Mr 
   the' bullying and threatening' private car park firms 
   The 
   - year - old 
   he over 
   by parking 
   He 
   said 
  