Victorian tribunal dismisses bid to cancel parking enforcement over missed review deadline

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal dismissed Erin Walsh’s application to cancel enforcement action arising from a parking infringement notice issued by the City Parking Compliance Unit. Walsh had sought to have her review request treated as lodged on time and the enforcement action cancelled.

The Tribunal found that Walsh had not proved that a review request was actually lodged by the 14 May deadline stated in the infringement notice. It also refused the requested cancellation because that relief depended on proof of timely lodgment or another established basis for cancellation.

No monetary amount was awarded.

The Tribunal identified the central issue as whether Walsh had lodged a review request by 14 May. It held that the burden rested on Walsh because she was seeking relief from the enforcement process.

The infringement notice was found to be clear and reliable evidence of the deadline. The Tribunal also treated the Unit’s case-management record, as described in its submissions, as the best available record evidence on whether a request had been received.

Walsh said she had seen a confirmation screen and that an online form had been lodged. The Tribunal accepted that those assertions could indicate an attempt to use the system, but found they did not establish that the request was completed and received.

The record did not contain a saved confirmation, email, confirmation number or other objective evidence of completed lodgment. The Tribunal said: “The evidence shows a deadline and a disputed attempt, but not a proven lodgment.”

It rejected the suggestion that a possible technical failure could itself establish the required fact. While such a failure was described as a plausible explanation, the Tribunal held that it remained unproven and that the Unit was not required to demonstrate that its system had worked perfectly on the relevant day.

The Tribunal said it had considered Walsh’s fairness concerns, but concluded that fairness did not remove the need for proof of the key filing fact. It found no identified additional obtainable evidence likely to cure the evidentiary gap and decided the matter without a further adjournment.

“Reliable records carry more weight than a general recollection.”

Walsh submitted that she had not ignored the fine and had submitted an online review form before the deadline. She said enforcement came as a surprise because she believed the review was pending consideration.

She also contended that the City Parking system may have failed after she submitted the form. Walsh argued that she should not bear the consequences of a possible technical problem and referred to a claimed receipt and screenshot, though the formal judgment recorded no reliable proof that the Unit received a completed request.

The City Parking Compliance Unit submitted that its records showed no review application had been received by 14 May. It accepted that Walsh may have opened the website or started the process, but argued that this was different from completing and lodging a request.

The Unit relied on the infringement notice and its case-management record. It said no confirmation email, confirmation number or other record of receipt had been produced, and asked that the cancellation request not be granted.

The dispute arose from a parking infringement notice issued after a restricted-zone stop near Geelong Station. The notice required any review request to be made by 14 May.

Walsh maintained that she submitted an online review form on 12 May, before the stated deadline. She later received an enforcement notice and sought cancellation of that action, together with recognition that her review request had been lodged in time.

The Tribunal’s outcome is confined to the evidence before it: it did not find that Walsh had proved a completed and received review request by the deadline, and therefore did not grant relief from enforcement.