@Hippocrates and all,
Just updating as the further 4 rejection responses have come through.
The responses appear to be template replies focusing mainly on signage, without really addressing anything i've said. They are all identical in wording
My position from here is that I intend to continue contesting the remaining PCNs on the basis that I had no opportunity to modify my behaviour before becoming aware of the restriction (first contravention 27/02, first notice received approx 09/03).
I also intend to rely on the point raised earlier regarding a motorist being entitled to know when and what to pay according to the statutory process and council publications, as the sequence and timing here meant liability accumulated before I was even aware there was an issue.
The financial aspect is not my primary argument, but I have provided evidence showing the cumulative amount is beyond what I can realistically afford, which I believe is relevant when considering proportionality and discretion.
My concern is that if I continue through the formal process and ultimately lose, the penalties increase substantially despite already having demonstrated financial hardship. However, I also feel I have little option but to continue, as the rejection responses so far do not appear to engage with the actual circumstances or points raised, and instead seem largely standardised.
Does that seem like the correct overall approach from here, particularly for formal representations and potentially tribunal if necessary?
Appreciate all the help so far.
