Your argument is essentially down to inadequacy of signage. This is subjective, so if you take them to London Tribunals, that is what an adjudicator will decide on. Yes, it is a trap with no meaningful advance signage, but the adjudicator could say that the signs were straight in front of you so why did you drive past them ?
Basically, it comes down to whether you are prepared to risk the additional £65 you would have to pay if you lost.
Thank you Incandescent for your input. Pretty much tallies with what was within the rejection letter referencing the restriction signs conforming to TSRGD 2016: yet weirdly, also enclosing a redundant picture of a sign which clearly doesn't.
It also fails to address the preceding 'School Street' sign displayed on Nutbrook Street being incorrectly sign-posted with misleading information as to the direction to the school.
I would be interested to know at which point in my video the signs first reveal their intention with any clarity to other observers, whilst also being curious if the absence of any advance warnings could be contestable?
...the adjudicator could say that the signs were straight in front of you so why did you drive past them ?
I'm guessing that responding with either: "I thought the school was closed because the area wasn't awash with children", or , "The sign I passed on Nutbrook Street said the school was in the other direction" won't win the day!