Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Brooks appeals a $45 parking penalty issued by the Portland Parking Review Office. The notice records her vehicle in zone 214 at 10:18 a.m. and states that the officer found no active payment. Elena says she had paid for that zone and asks that the penalty be cancelled. The office asks that the penalty not be cancelled, or alternatively that it be reduced. 2. The record includes a mobile parking receipt showing a $3 payment for Elena’s vehicle from 10:02 to 11:02 a.m. on the notice date. The receipt does not display a zone. A separate app session-details screen shows the same transaction, vehicle, and time, identifies zone 214, and marks the session paid. The office acknowledges that this screen directly supports Elena’s account, but points out that it is party-provided rather than an independent provider record. The office has no separate provider record explaining the conflict. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Elena has shown that her payment covered zone 214 during the cited time. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to specific supporting facts or records. Rule 2 directs the court to weigh the reliability and consistency of records. Rule 45 requires an administrative decision to have support in the record. The burden to establish the basis for cancelling the penalty rests with Elena. Submissions of the parties 4. Elena says she paid and that the app screen shows the relevant zone and paid session. Her closing statement calls the matter straightforward, but that assertion is not itself proof. Her evidence is the receipt and the app-details screen. 5. The office argues that the notice records the officer’s finding of no active payment at 10:18 a.m. It accepts that the receipt proves a payment for Elena’s vehicle during the relevant hour and that the app screen identifies zone 214 and marks the session paid. It disputes the weight of the app screen because it is party-provided and asks that the penalty not be cancelled outright. In the alternative, it asks the court to consider reducing the penalty. The office also states that it has no separate provider record to resolve the conflict. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt is a clear record of a $3 payment for Elena’s vehicle during the hour that includes the cited time. Standing alone, it does not establish the zone. The app-details screen supplies that missing connection: it identifies the same transaction and vehicle, gives the same session time, names zone 214, and marks the session paid. These two records are consistent as to vehicle and time, and the screen directly addresses the disputed location. 7. The app screen is not an independent provider record, and the record does not establish how it was generated or independently verify its contents. That limits its weight, but does not make it irrelevant or erase its specific connection to the receipt. The notice is also evidence: it records the officer’s observation that no active payment was found. It supports the office’s position that the officer did not see an active payment. It does not, however, explain why the app shows a paid session for the same vehicle, zone, and time. The office confirms that it has no separate record explaining the discrepancy. Reasons 8. Elena has met her burden on the balance of the available record. The receipt alone would leave the zone uncertain. The app-details screen resolves that uncertainty by linking the same paid transaction to zone 214 for the period from 10:02 to 11:02 a.m. The cited time, 10:18 a.m., falls within that period. The office’s acknowledgment that the screen directly supports Elena’s account is consistent with the screen’s contents, though the court independently weighs the exhibit rather than treating the acknowledgment as conclusive proof. 9. The notice deserves consideration, but its entry is a record of what the officer found, not an explanation of the underlying payment-system conflict. The office has not produced a separate record showing that the app session was for another zone, another vehicle, or a different time. Nor has it offered an explanation for why the officer’s system showed no active payment despite the matching paid session. The court does not assume that the officer acted improperly; it finds only that the notice’s unexplained entry is less persuasive than the receipt and the specific app screen considered together. 10. Rule 45 supports requiring the agency’s decision to have record support. Here, the notice supports the fact that the officer recorded no active payment, but the fuller record supports that Elena had paid for zone 214 during the cited time. The office’s request to retain or reduce the penalty therefore does not succeed. A reduced penalty would still impose a charge for the same alleged unpaid parking, while the evidence establishes that the session was paid. No separate basis for a reduced charge appears in the supplied record. Final order 11. The appeal is granted. The $45 parking penalty assessed by the Portland Parking Review Office is cancelled. Elena Brooks owes $0 on this notice, and the office may not collect the $45 penalty under it. No additional monetary award is made to either party. This order decides only the penalty shown in the supplied record.