No not at all. Give this a go.
The alleged contravention did not occur. Having viewed Manchester Council’s bus lane TRO’s that are published on the Traffic Penalty Tribunal website such as TRO reference MC262B, it is evident that Manchester Council define a bus lane as an area of carriageway having a thick white line to diagram 1049 of the TSRGD. The area of carriageway my vehicle occupied in your camera recording is not an area of carriageway that has a thick white line to diagram 1049. Consequently, my vehicle was not in a bus lane according to the definition your TRO’s use.
Furthermore, the placed round blue traffic sign to diagram 953 of the TSRGD is a traffic sign that restricts a route to certain vehicles. The Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities Outside London on Civil Enforcement of Bus Lane and Moving Traffic Contraventions issued by the Secretary by State for Transport does under Annex A advise that this sign is a traffic sign conveying a moving traffic contravention and therefore it is not a sign subject to a bus lane contravention. In which case the Council has used the wrong contravention description. The correct description for contravening the sign is code 33 "using a route restricted to certain vehicles"
The penalty charge should be cancelled because my vehicle was not in a bus lane as defined by your TRO. If this is not accepted, the penalty charge should be cancelled because the signage used conveys a moving traffic contravention and not a bus lane contravention as demonstrated by the aforementioned Annex A and therefore the wrong contravention description is stated on the PCN.
Should the Council not agree with these two points of law, I require the Council to give full reasoning for any rejection with counter arguments directing me to the law that the Council rely upon for their rejection.
