Whalley Conservative Borough Councillors, Terry Hill and Joyce Holgate warn of the damage to Whalley businesses and shops  of penalty noticesof up £120 being issued to shoppers who overstay on the Whalley Arms car park.

Terry Hill commented '' We are concerned the issuing of penalty notices is  driving custom away from the shops and businesses of Whalley, a view shared by some members of the Parish Council who have expressed the same view at meetings . I have been told by shoppers receiving these notices they will never come back to Whalley again. Our concerns are not about the cost of parking which is reasonable, but the penalty notices for overstaying. We advise that if a shopper or resident receives one of these notices they take it to the landlord of the Whalley Arms and if he will do nothing, consult  the citizens advice bureau or their solicitor  before making any payment.''

Joyce Holgate added ''Pensioners, the disabled (who have no concessions in this car park)  and the vulnerable, who have no knowledge of the civil law, are shocked and worried on  receiving letters demanding payment of penalties and threatening court action, which if ignored will result in bailiffs seizing their goods.  They  pay these penalties demanded in fear of the consequences. I must emphasise that this is not a council car park backed by bye laws, regulations and penalties imposed by local council using their statutory authority .''

Ken Hind senior vice chairman of the Ribble Valley Conservatives stated ''The Whalley Arms car park is owned by Enterprise Inns and leased to the landlord of the pub who has hired Parking Eye Limited , a company based in Chorley, to collect parking fees from motorists and  penalties from over stayers.''

''Cars  are photographed entering and leaving the car park . The demands for penalties varying from £60 to £120, which rise if not paid, are sent to the registered owner of the vehicle, who may not be the driver,  and therefore cannot be liable. Parking Eye are paying £2-50 per vehicle to the DVLA for the details of the registered owner in order to send out these letters. 

''The  demand letters that we have seen,   can imply to the cursory reader, although not stated , that the Whalley Arms car park is backed by some official power to enforce  demands for payment. Reference is made to regulations and appeals in the demand letters. This has  the potential to give  the wrong impression.  The appeal court is the landlord of the Whalley Arms and the directors Parking Eye Limited.  The company we believe receive the full amount of  the money paid from  these so called penalties .’’

.

 '' What is not immediately  obvious is that this is a private  civil law agreement between the promoters of the car park and the motorist, only enforecable in  the County Court . These are not parking fines as we know them.''

''Letters sent out by Parking Eye demanding penalties  state;-

‘If this letter is ignored , we shall have no option other than to instruct our debt collection agency to secure immediate payment, commencing court proceedings , through our solicitors, if required. Therefore to avoid future and unnecessary action please pay the outstanding Parking Charge at the final reduced amount, for what was a clear contravention of the parking regulations.’ The letter goes on to suggest the consequences of non- payment could result in court judgment, and if ignored that a bailiff may attend your home to remove goods.. This will worry some members of the public about the impact this may have on their credit rating ''

''There is no mention that the landlord and Parking Eye will have to  'prove' the notices containing  the terms of the contract are well enough displayed , the  penalty clause is reasonable and that the registered owner of the vehicle is also the driver. In many cases motorists may  have a defence to these demnds.''

''There is need for proper regulation of these private parking companies with an obligation to state that this is a private agreement and  not backed by bye laws or statutory regulation. The public should know when parking that it is private car  park and that it is owners who are levying penalties under a contractual  agreement . If  necessary the demand for penalty should state that this is  a contractual  agreement which the promoter of the car park made known to the motorist by notices in the car park. Any similarity to systems used by local authorities in collecting car parking fines should be avoided, as the public in many cases do not know the difference .

''In the past this was a car park  was leased by the Ribble Valley Borough Council from Enterprise Inns. If approached by the owners, the leader of the council, Councillor Michael Ranson has made it clear that any suggestion to take it over at reasonable cost, will be sympathetically viewed by the Council.''