In the UK, there was recently a case in the press about a driver that was issued a fine for driving in a bus lane. The photograph the Local Authority supplied as "evidence" was of someone wearing an item of clothing with wording that was similar to the number plate of his car.
Clearly, this fine was issued by software and no human being was actually involved in the process. Apparently this is acceptable.
My question is, this behaviour is so egregious, does the "offender" have the right to completely ignore the fine and all its auto-generated escalation correspondence, until an actual human being finally looks at it, realises the error and quashes the case?
If he did ignore it completely, and the first human to see it were a judge, would that judge 1) have sympathy for his situation and reprimand the Local Authority for wasting the court's time, or 2) take a dim view of his lack of action to get the case quashed at an earlier stage?
If 2), what if this item of clothing became fashionable and was therefore causing this person to receive hundreds of these fines every week?
EDIT: In response to @motosubatsu's answer, in particular my "fashionable item" aspect. I suppose by "fashionable item" I was intending to cover a larger topic which I could summarise like this: Suppose I want to annoy somebody as much as possible, what's to stop me from printing a t-shirt with their actual number plate on it, then walking around past all sorts of cameras, knowing that they will receive multiple fines every day and have no choice but to keep calling and explaining. After all, the council has no duty to make it easy for someone to get through on the phone, so, potentially, I could walk around bus lanes and car parks all day. I could get some friends to do this all over the country in different local authority areas and the victim could - literally - have not enough hours in the day to have to keep fighting false fines. Would they not have some recourse to sue for harassment or "vexatious litigation"?