Double Jeopardy?

[Raffles]

One here for the legal beagles.
On 14/09/12, I received a notification from my local authority alleging that one of my company's vehicles had contravened Section 47 (1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It stated that in accordance with Section 112 (2) (a) of this Act, I was required to provide them with information regarding the driver or keeper of the vehicle. The notification was dated 06/09/12 and stated that it must be returned within 7 days of the date of the notification. I returned it on 18/09/12 and obtained proof of postage.
On 24/09/12, I received a second notification demanding information with regard to the same alleged incident. This one was dated 20/09/12 and once again stated that it must be returned within 7 days of this date. This notification was returned 25/09/12. Proof of posting was not obtained on this occasion.
I have since received 2 seperate summonses to appear at The Magistrates Court on 2 different dates. They have charged me with 2 seperate counts of failing to provide information contrary to Section 112 (4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act.
Am I right in thinking that the authorities are acting unreasonably or maybe even unlawfully by putting me in jeopardy twice for circumstances that arose from one single alleged incident?
____________________
A good loser will always be a loser.

[map]

I think see Interpretations Act as a start (search on here).
Plus Section 112 (4) (link click here)

[Raffles]

[Mr.Everready]

Maybe if your staff wern't so lazy they wouldn't need to park up in a restricted area and park in the designated area instead ?!
____________________
the undemocratically unelected mod of the Scottish section

[Rogerborg]

[Raffles]

[map]