I understand that you are of the opinion that I have contravened a restriction governed by a traffic order. I am aware that the legislation enabling a traffic order to be made is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Although you accuse me of this contravention you have not provided any evidence that confirms that the restriction is supported by a legally enacted traffic order. Therefore it is necessary for you to provide me with a full copy of the traffic order that you believe has been contravened and I require you to explain fully what article or articles I allegedly contravened and to direct me to the specific entry for the location concerned within the relevant schedule and to explain fully why you believe that I do not qualify for one of the given exemptions within the traffic order. It is paramount that the traffic order includes the preamble and all the articles as well as the schedules and is sealed and dated and accompanied by all maps. If the original order has been amended then it is necessary that these amendments be also provided in full. I will remind you that in the case between Terence Chase v Westminster City Council (Case No. 1960113778), the adjudicator emphasised that a council has a legal duty to provide all evidence at the earliest opportunity to an appellant. Failure to do so is considered by the courts to be prejudicial and I include Mr G R Hickinbottom’s comments for your reference:
“6. There is no express duty of disclosure on either an owner or an authority.
However, where an authority has relevant evidence - particularly evidence relating to a specific issue raised by an owner - it is incumbent on that authority to disclose this to the owner. A failure to do so would lead to a patent injustice to the owner. For example, where the Parking Attendant’s contemporaneous notes include relevant material - perhaps supporting the owner’s case - these must be disclosed to the owner at the appropriate time. Where the owner raises a point in representations in respect of which the authority has relevant evidence, that evidence should be disclosed at that (representation) stage: it should not be withheld until any appeal is made. The reason for this is not just that for an authority to withhold evidence in such circumstances would be patently unfair: disclosure of evidence at that stage also limits the number of unnecessary appeals to the Parking Appeals Service, because an owner may be persuaded not to proceed to an appeal if he has disclosed to him cogent evidence in the hands of the authority. Certainly, where an authority relies upon specific information in an appeal to the Parking Appeals Service (e.g. they rely upon contemporaneous notes of the parking attendant of the tax disc details, or other details concerning the vehicle), this must be disclosed to the appellant. If the appellant denies that those details relate to his vehicle, then it will be for him or her to put forward cogent evidence in rebuttal (e.g. a copy of the relevant tax disc, or a photograph of the vehicle or log book).
The circumstances in which it would be appropriate for an authority not to disclose evidence upon which it was relying - either at the stage of representations or an appeal - will be very rare indeed. An authority is bound to disclose such evidence by virtue of the rules of natural justice: and, as I
have said, disclosure of the information at an early stage can only result in fewer unnecessary appeals being pursued, with the attendant saving of costs that that would entail.
An appellant should also disclose any documents upon which he or she proposes to rely and, where there is to be an oral hearing, before any hearing. Of course, where there is late disclosure of evidence by either party, it will be a matter for the adjudicator as to whether to proceed or to adjourn: it will be a question in each case of what justice requires, bearing in mind the nature of the proceedings. Certainly, it will be a very rare case when evidence, no matter how late, will be shut out.”
With reference to the above I also require you to provide me with the following evidence so that I may make valued and informed judgement as to whether your case can be proved:
1) Copies of the CEOs contemporaneous notes.
2) In light of the de minimis nature of the timing of the alleged contravention, you will need to provide me with unequivocal evidence of the correct calibration and synchronisation of the clock on the CEOs hand held device.
3) In light of the de minimis nature of the timing of the alleged contravention, you will need to provide all contemporaneous photographic evidence collected by the CEO, inclusive of time stamps and evidence of the correct calibration and synchronisation of the clock on the CEOs camera.
4) The Traffic Regulation Order as specified above.
)
