TRANSPORT officials in London have responded to a York millionaire who chained himself to his car in protest over a congestion charge fine.

They say there are more than 1,000 signs and hundreds of road markings alerting motorists to charging zones in the capital.

The Evening Press reported how property tycoon Stephen Vella said he would rather go to jail than pay up.

He was sent a £40 fine for entering a congestion zone without paying the £5 fee.

The defiant Askham Bryan resident challenged this decision and refused to pay, claiming he was not aware he was in a charging area.

Bailiffs moved in on Wednesday, but he dramatically chained his car to a digger - then himself to the car - and saw them off.

However, a Transport For London spokesman, in response to Mr Vella's claims, said: "More than 1,000 traffic signs have been installed on the main roads into the zone, around the boundary zone and within the zone itself.

"A further 300 road markings are laid at the zone boundary. The signage strategy was agreed with the Department for Transport and more than 500,000 drivers successfully pay the charge every week."

He added that Mr Vella's case was at the final stage of a "thorough" enforcement process.

"Transport For London encourages drivers who feel they have been issued a penalty charge notice incorrectly to interact with the representations process.

"Should the independent adjudicators decide in favour of Transport For London, the debt will be forwarded to a debt recovery agency.

"This is the final stage of a thorough enforcement process, when all other means have not been successful."

Responding, Mr Vella today maintained there were still not enough signs warning drivers about the charging zone.

He said: "Since I received my penalty notice, why have they increased the signage? I've noticed they've done this recently when I've been driving into London, including new signs on the M1 as you approach the capital."

He also disputed Transport For London's claim the process had been "thorough" and said he thought its communication had been "poor".

He said there had been a gap in paperwork sent him between his appeal and the bailiffs arriving that gave him the impression it was a "closed matter" and his appeal had been successful.

He also questioned why his wife's name was now on the bailiff's demands when he says she did not own the vehicle at the time of the offence.

"They should get their paperwork right," he added. "She's an innocent victim."

Updated: 12:39 Saturday, November 20, 2004