Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Liat Ben-Ami challenges a ₪250 resident-parking fine issued in Haifa at 10:20 on 12 May 2026. She asks that the fine be cancelled. The Haifa Resident Parking Review Office asks that cancellation be denied or, alternatively, that the fine be reduced. 2. The record includes a cropped renewal screenshot, a complete renewal acknowledgment email, the fine notice and permit lookup, and the parties’ submissions. The complete email states that Liat may continue parking under her existing resident permit while the renewal application is processed. The office acknowledges both that instruction and that its notice did not address it. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the complete email reliably establishes permission to park during processing; whether the fine decision addressed the relevant record; and whether cancellation is supported. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to facts or records supporting it. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to unsupported recollection. Under Rule 45, an administrative decision is stronger when its findings have support in the record. Rule 47 limits agency discretion where relevant factors are ignored. Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to the proven matter. Submissions of the parties 4. Liat submits that she renewed online before parking and that the office’s own email allowed continued parking while the application was processed. She seeks cancellation of the full ₪250 fine. Her submissions also suggest that the expired system status led to the fine. 5. The office argues that receipt of a renewal application is not final approval and relies on its lookup showing the permit as expired. It nevertheless accepts that the email allowed continued parking during processing, that the notice did not address that instruction, and that it has no separate verification or evidence resolving the email’s authenticity. It maintains its request to deny or reduce cancellation but acknowledges that the present record does not support insisting on the full fine. Evidence and findings 6. The cropped screenshot records receipt of a renewal at 09:42 on 12 May 2026 and shows the vehicle identifier. Standing alone, it does not show the parking instruction or final approval. The complete email contains the same time and vehicle identifier and adds the express instruction that Liat may continue parking under her existing resident permit while the application is processed. It says to keep the acknowledgment and does not state that the renewal was finally approved. 7. The complete email is a presented exhibit, not merely an allegation in a submission. Its matching details and consistency with the cropped screenshot support its reliability. The record says the original could be inspected, and Liat agreed to inspection if needed; the record does not establish that inspection occurred. That absence warrants some caution, but it does not make the exhibit missing or erase its matching details. The office does not claim the email is false and offers no separate evidence against it. Considering the record as a whole, I find the email sufficiently reliable to establish the stated interim parking instruction. 8. The fine notice and attached lookup show that the office recorded the permit as expired when it issued the fine. They establish the system status on which the office relied. They do not establish that Liat lacked permission to park under the separate instruction, and the notice does not discuss pending renewals. The office confirms that omission. Liat’s account that she submitted the renewal and understood she could continue parking is consistent with the documents, but the finding rests principally on the email, not on treating her account as independently verified testimony. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Liat bears the burden of showing that the parking instruction applied to her. She has met it. The email identifies the same vehicle and acknowledgment time as the screenshot, and its wording directly addresses parking during processing. The office’s lookup is not inconsistent with the email: a permit could remain recorded as expired while the office instructed applicants to continue using the existing permit during processing. The office’s argument that the email is not final approval is correct but does not answer what the email permitted in the meantime. I find the interim instruction established under Rules 1 and 2. 10. On the second issue, the record establishes that the fine decision relied on the expired status without addressing the instruction. The office’s own acknowledgment confirms that fact. Rule 45 requires attention to the evidence supporting the decision, and Rule 47 does not permit the relevant instruction to be ignored when deciding whether the expired status justified a fine. The lookup supports the existence of an expired database entry; it does not, by itself, support the conclusion that parking was prohibited despite the instruction. This issue is established. 11. On the third issue, Liat has shown that cancellation is supported. The instruction was specific, applied while processing continued, and matched the vehicle in the renewal record. The fine was issued later that morning. The office has not shown that the instruction was withdrawn, inapplicable, or unreliable. Its request to deny or reduce cancellation therefore does not overcome Liat’s evidence. The full fine is the amount challenged, and cancellation removes that fine rather than awarding an additional sum. This is a proportionate remedy under Rule 6. 12. This decision does not find that Liat’s renewal was finally approved, nor does it decide any later permit status or any other parking event. It decides only the fine in this record, based on the instruction applicable while the renewal was being processed. The remaining uncertainty about whether the original email was inspected does not change the result on the evidence presented and the office’s express acknowledgment. Final order 13. Liat Ben-Ami’s request is granted. The ₪250 resident-parking fine recorded in the notice at 10:20 on 12 May 2026 is cancelled. The Haifa Resident Parking Review Office shall not collect that fine from Liat. No additional monetary award is made. The office’s request to deny or reduce cancellation is denied. This order does not declare the renewal finally approved or determine any matter beyond this fine.