Remember, this is in the same vein as bank charges. The banks put their charges in their terms and conditions from the outset, however its the UNFAIR part that is challenged.

weird - this happened in june - and while we did have SOME rain in June, it was not raining on that day, or in the 3 day period in the South East when I had the car. FACT, not assumption. Motorways do not suggest 'probably long journeys'. I use a motorway every day to work, I drive 8 miles along it. Does that make it a long journey? a 'few' seconds. 12.6 seconds. Quite a few seconds. Enough to stop the car. If that isn't safe, what is? Safer than rigidly sticking to speed limits irrespective of the conditions I would say. I'm not whinging that my speeding got me into trouble. You take your choices. The fee was not due to my ignorance, I was aware of it. I'm arguing it on the basis it is unfair and does not adequately reflect their costs. Did you miss this bit? I'm still a member of the IAM (one speeding conviction doesn't mean they strip you of your membership). Not surprised you're not a member, or your rigid views on speeding might have been more learned.

buzby - thanks for your constructive comments and enlightenment. I agree that the point here is whether the charge is 'reasonable' and adequately reflects their costs. Hard one to argue but maybe worth a try! Cheers.

It wasn't wet, it was a sunny day. It doesn't rain every single day in every part of the country. Anyway, before you go off making more assumptions based on no knowledge, shall we get back to the theme of the thread? And for information, 79mph is 39.5 yards a second. So it's quite a few seconds to cover 500 yards, in fact its 12.6 seconds of braking. Which in the car I was driving, is enough to stop. (The highway code stopping distances are very out-dated). Contrary to what you may assume further, it won't change my driving style! - There is a lot more to speed than rigidly sticking to the limits, but if I can make an assumption of my own seeing as you like to make so many, you're probably one of these old drivers who thinks they know everything, cause loads of accidents around you, have a large inappreciation of the real world, and think you're some kind of Special Constable telling everyone their business. Oh and BTW, I'm a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Doubt you are.

parva - when banks charge £30 for a bounced cheque, this is written in their terms & conditions - but thousands of people are re-claiming these charges as they are unfair and are covered under the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations 1999!! did you miss this bit? weird al - lets not get into a whole discussion about speeding, there are whole forums on other websites devoted to this sensitive issue.. only to say there was no risk to pedestrians (dual carriageway, barriers either side), i was marginally over the limit (79mph) and no other cars within 500 yds at the time. thanks.

Thanks Rob S. Buzby- The banks have the same authority to take money that the car hire company do. Are you telling me that when you signed up for your bank account, it didn't say in the terms and conditions that there would be a £25 charge etc for a failed direct debit or a bounced cheque? I've had a bank account for 15 years and remember the charges the day I signed up to it. The point is they are unfair, and they are covered under the Regulation I previously mentioned. A penalty payment should only be levied at WHAT IT COSTS the bank/hire car company etc. This is the whole basis for bank claims. The banks just didn't all get together one day and say, "hmm i know lets charge everyone £30 for no reason"... It was there in the T's&C's from the start. Just like with the hire company.

Buzby - I find it hard to reply to your messages as you seem to have a "your fault so lump it" attitude... Thank you for your comments, but if you read the "unfair terms in consumer contract regulations 1999", the wording is quite clear that I have a case. It makes no difference that the fee is in their T's & C's. It states this quite clearly in the SI.

I spoke to them via e-mail and on the telephone requesting a breakdown and they point blank refused. They even said that part of it was VAT!, I didn't think VAT was chargeable on a business' costs. Still, I put it all in writing and sent them a letter today. Cheers

Yes it is, but the "unfair terms in consumer contracts regulation 1999", states more or less, in laymans terms, that it does not matter if a fee is stated in T's&C's or not, as if it is unfair and does not reflect their costs then it is unlawful.

I recently hired a car from AVIS and unfortunately picked up some speeding points when it was in my possession. I've since answered the Notice of Intended Prosecution, paid the fine and had my licence endorsed. AVIS have now charged an extra £47 to my credit card as an "administration fee", simply for passing on my name and address to the police. (when the speeding fine was issued, it was sent to them as the registered owners) I believe this to be an unfair charge, on the same basis as the bank charges. How can it possibly cost them £47 to write my name and address down on a form and put in the post? Any ideas or thoughts anyone?