Bristol court rejects parking permit reconsideration request over missing renewal receipt

The Administrative court hearing in Bristol denied Leah Bennett's request for an order requiring Bristol City Council to reconsider its refusal concerning her resident parking permit renewal. Bennett had sought a fresh decision if an earlier receipt was found, but the court said that condition had not been established.

The decision leaves unresolved whether an earlier renewal reached the council. The court did not award a permit or money, and Bennett had not asked it to grant a permit on the evidence presented.

Bennett said she submitted her renewal before the deadline, while the council's system was described as recording a later receipt. The court said a later entry would not necessarily reveal whether an earlier application had arrived, but that possibility was not proof that one had reached the council.

Bennett had no independent confirmation or witness available and was uncertain about a confirmation she remembered. Because she was seeking relief, the court said she had to establish the fact on which it depended; the council did not have to disprove it.

The council's account also had limits. Its reference to a later receipt was not accompanied by the underlying record or a date in evidence, and its statement that it could not locate an earlier response was not a produced search record.

The hearing record contained no refusal document, explanation or review materials. The court therefore could not determine what the council considered, or find either that its decision was supported or that it was unfair. The absence of those materials alone did not prove Bennett's claim.

Bennett argued that the later system entry did not establish that no earlier renewal had arrived. She acknowledged that she had no receipt or other independent proof at the hearing and asked for reconsideration only if an earlier receipt was found.

The council referred to a later receipt and said there was no sign of an earlier request. Its final submission said it could not locate an earlier response and attributed the problem to its system; the judgment treated those submissions as arguments rather than independent proof.

The dispute arose from the council's refusal concerning Bennett's resident parking permit renewal. The case materials describe the system as listing receipt two days after the deadline, but the judgment said the underlying record and a date were not in evidence.

The ruling decides the request on the material presented at the hearing. It does not establish that no earlier renewal was ever received, that Bennett deliberately filed late, that the council's later date was accurate or that its system caused the problem.