update. The Adjudicator has upheld my appeal and the PCN will be cancelled.
"There are two signs at the junction, one is facing the direction that Appellant’s vehicle travelled and one is
facing the other direction. It appears that a vehicle entering Putney Embankment from Lower Richmond Road
could turn left or right.
The Appellant submits that the white sign stated ‘pedestrian zone’ but then blue sign above it contradicted this
by indicating oncoming vehicles.
The white sign is that prescribed by Diagram 618.3C at Item 2 in Part 2 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2016, being a permitted variant thereof, as indicating ‘entry to, and waiting
in, a pedestrian and cycle zone restricted’. The blue sign is that prescribed by Diagram 960.2 at Item 7 in Part 4
of Schedule 9 of those Regulations. The signs are contradictory.
No exemptions are shown on the prohibition sign. The Enforcement Authority has stated that motor vehicles
are prohibited regardless of direction, but there are exemptions for highway maintenance, PLA or Thames
Tideway access. These exempt vehicles and cycles must follow the One way (contraflow) directional signage.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as
to ensure that they do so only as permitted This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and
prohibitions indicated by the signs. However, it is also the responsibility of the Enforcement Authority to
ensure that restrictions and prohibitions are clearly signed..
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually
produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I am not satisfied that, on this particular occasion, the signage
was sufficiency clear and precise for the driver of a vehicle approaching this junction as the Appellant explains
that he did.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

The blue sign is NOT a cycle sign..The standard sign for one way car traffic is a white arrow on a blue background. This sign adds a contraflow cycle lane to a one way vehicle traffic street- see https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf p 143 and 142. They are regulatory not advisory.  So i was obeying the sign as it was when correctly signed as a one way street. the council then added a contradictory no motor vehicles sign.

I wonder if you could advise re my case for 14/9 please? The road by Putney Bridge along Putney riverside was for years a one way street -  (Diagram 960.2 one way vehicular road with contraflow pedal cycles), and road markings to match. The council then put up an additional contradictory No Motor Vehicles (diagram 619) just under the existing signeage with NO changes to the existing signeage  and took £50k in fines to Jan 2026 (577PCNs in 2025, and 657 to end Jan 2026   ).. These signs are at a yellow box as well so that if you realise the contradictory signs and stop, then you get a yellow box fine - however WHY is there still a yellow box since no traffic can go in or out of this junction???
They say the signs are "prescribed regulatory signs and there's no prohibition on using them together. The Council are satisfied that the restriction is clearly conveyed at the location." To me that's like having two sets of traffic lights as you approach a junction - one permanently red and one permanently green and just fining everyone for going through a red light....... How do you think I can win this appeal at this stage please? Perhaps they think 960.2 is just for cycles, but its NOT. My response was as below but since this they have confirmed a valid TMO (not shown on their web site), further info attached here (PCN, Their latest response and Photo of the crime scene.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nzd7wm5lqn9214ckz3k33/PCN.pdf?rlkey=9agtgc8qdobsa9mq0juzq7m23&st=bgm4sjvq&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tlm73pwiwkdecgj2nh8w9/Latest-response.pdf?rlkey=bfrm0w7udecjta9g5322ev284&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lc1hfxlo5fvum9zx5udvg/image-3.JPG?rlkey=ouj4mcivio52e1xc23x0vod4m&st=xivlah3f&dl=0
https://maps.app.goo.gl/of8wcs29ahsCsAp97

Please cancel this PCN as there was no contravention of a prescribed order or failure to comply with an indication on a sign – for at least one of the following reasons::
1.   The PCN does not have the required photo of the sign I am meant to have contravened (CASE NO: 206 0543587 – London Borough of Camden), and as below there is one sign saying I legally entered a one way street in the correct direction, and one that I committed an offense....
2.   Incorrect and confusing signage. This road did allow vehicular access and I have not been here since it was made into a pedestrian and cycle zone with misleading and potentially illegal signage:
a.   The signage is a combination of an advisory cycle contraflow on a one-way VEHICULAR street (TSM ch3 11.6.2 sign 960.2) together with a no vehicular access 618.3C but TSM does not permit such a combination – and it makes no sense- the top sign says one way vehicular access and the one below no vehicular access!!   The road marking are in agreement with one way street with cycle contraflow!
b.   The signage is angled along Lower Richmond road but apparently refers to Putney embankment, and is confusingly in front of other signage. The road access is also ‘blind’ and on a yellow box and there is no warning “no left turn” sign as one proceeds Eastbound along Lower Richmond road, compounding the risk of getting a ticket for yellow box infraction if one actually realises these conflicting signs were meant to stop vehicles proceeding down Putney Embankment.
c.   I was accessing the PLA slipway to assess suitability for a boat trip. It is a legal requirement that boat users be able to access PLA slipways so the signage is in the wrong place and should be further down the road where it does a 90 degree turn – ie past the PLA slipway. I parked further down the embankment and paid for parking, went back to inspect the PLA slipway and only then realised that the van was there to catch people like me who were confused by the signeage. I have subsequently found that Wandsworth’s OWN notification of the intent to make this pedestrianised says  “Occasional vehicular access will be required to maintain the slip way, the Thames Tideway Foreshore Structure, Putney Pier and routine highway maintenance”, but the 618.3C sign does not permit access by boat users.......
3.   Wandsworth does not appear to have either a temporary of permanent TMO for this site – see https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-safety/traffic-management-orders-tmos/
4.   The PCN was issued by CCTV but there is no warning sign of CCTV in operation. In fact this was a mobile van mounted camera parked illegally across two parking bays without a valid permit for parking in the bay at the time, and the driver said he was there ‘every weekend’. This site must catch a lot of people to pay for a van and driver! It was the weekend before Christmas, but still Wandsworth had a van there....The chief adjudicator said “Enforcement authorities should regularly remind themselves of the transport secretary’s guidance and ensure that the use of CCTV enforcement is properly supporting their transport objectives and that it is being applied fairly and with integrity.” This scheme makes no sense as a pedestrianisation as the pavement is very wide and there are no shops, only as a trap to fine motorists. From East to West there is this very short 100m “no vehicle/advisory cycle contraflow one way street” to Thames Place, followed by a 150m two-way traffic section to Glendarvon street, and then another no vehicle section (except for access) by the boat houses....

I'd like to hold back the FOI info on the number of fines as I want to ask for ALL fines to be revoked. Can I present new data at the Adjudication or do I have to file ALL info in advance please?
Thanks!
Nigel