Haifa administrative review cancels ₪250 parking fine over renewal-processing instruction

An administrative review hearing in Haifa granted Liat Ben-Ami’s request to cancel a ₪250 resident-parking fine, finding that the office’s renewal acknowledgment permitted her to continue parking while her application was processed. The Haifa Resident Parking Review Office was directed not to collect the fine, and its request to deny cancellation or reduce the fine was rejected.

The order concerns the fine issued at 10:20 on 12 May 2026. No additional monetary award was made, and the decision did not declare Ben-Ami’s permit renewal finally approved.

The court distinguished the permit’s expired database status from the separate permission contained in the acknowledgment email. The lookup established what the enforcement system recorded, but did not establish that Ben-Ami was prohibited from parking despite the office’s instruction.

The complete email matched the cropped renewal screenshot’s vehicle identifier and receipt time of 09:42. Unlike the screenshot, it contained an express instruction allowing continued parking under the existing resident permit during processing. Those matching details supported the court’s finding that the email was sufficiently reliable.

The court acknowledged an evidentiary limit: although both sides were willing to have the original email inspected on Ben-Ami’s phone, the record did not establish that inspection occurred. That called for caution, but the office did not claim the email was false and offered no separate evidence against it. The finding rested principally on the documentary record, rather than treating Ben-Ami’s account as independently verified testimony.

Applying the recorded Rules 1 and 2, concerning the burden of supporting a claim and the weight of reliable records, the court held that Ben-Ami had established that the interim parking instruction applied to her. Under Rules 45 and 47, concerning record support and consideration of relevant factors, the office could not rely on expired status while ignoring that instruction.

Cancellation was proportionate under Rule 6 because it removed the challenged liability without awarding an additional sum. The office had not shown that the instruction was withdrawn, inapplicable or unreliable.

The judgment stated: “The office’s argument that the email is not final approval is correct but does not answer what the email permitted in the meantime.”

Ben-Ami submitted that she had applied for renewal before parking and before the fine was issued. She relied on the acknowledgment’s permission to continue parking and argued that the fine resulted from the system still showing her permit as expired.

The office maintained that receipt of a renewal application was not final approval and relied on its expired-status lookup. However, it accepted that the complete email permitted continued parking and that the fine notice did not address that instruction.

The office continued to seek denial of cancellation or a reduction of the fine, while acknowledging that the existing record did not support insisting on the full ₪250. It offered no independent evidence resolving the conflict between its enforcement position and the email.

Ben-Ami submitted her online resident-permit renewal at 09:42 on 12 May 2026. The fine followed at 10:20 while the application remained in processing. The record comprised a cropped screenshot, the complete acknowledgment email, the fine notice and permit lookup, and the parties’ submissions.

The outcome turns on the specific permission in the complete acknowledgment, not merely on an application having been submitted before enforcement. It resolves only this fine: it does not determine final renewal approval, later permit status or any other parking event.