Range Anxiety in the Dock: What Happens When Your EV Runs Out of Juice in a Permit Zone?

A Haringey tribunal case reveals a hard truth about electric vehicles, parking law, and the limits of what "I had no choice" can achieve at appeal.

Why This Case Should Worry Every EV Driver

Picture the scene: your electric vehicle's battery is flashing red, you're nowhere near a working charger, and the only place you can safely stop is a residents' permit bay. You pull in, relieved to have avoided a breakdown — and then a parking warden appears. You think: surely any reasonable person would understand? Surely the circumstances speak for themselves?

This is precisely the situation Mr Hashi found himself in before the London Borough of Haringey's enforcement machinery — and then before a tribunal adjudicator. His case is a wake-up call not just for EV drivers, but for anyone who assumes that a compelling reason for parking somewhere is the same as a legal defence against a fine.

It isn't. And understanding why could save you real money.

The Case: What Happened

Mr Hashi parked his electric vehicle in a residents' permit holder or pay-and-display bay in the London Borough of Haringey without displaying a valid permit and without paying the required charge.

A civil enforcement officer (essentially, a parking warden) attended the scene, made notes, and took photographs. The evidence was clear: the vehicle was in a controlled bay, no permit was displayed, and no payment had been made. A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.

Mr Hashi challenged the PCN, ultimately taking his case to the independent adjudicator at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal — the final stage of the formal appeals process for council-issued parking fines in London and across England outside the capital.

The Arguments: Driver vs Council

What Mr Hashi Argued

Mr Hashi's case was built around a genuinely sympathetic set of circumstances. He argued that he had parked urgently because his electric vehicle's battery was critically low — in other words, he was facing an imminent breakdown. He didn't stop there, however. He went further, placing his predicament in a broader context: Haringey, he contended, suffers from insufficient public charging infrastructure. Even where chargers exist — at major supermarkets, for instance — they are hampered by proprietary apps and fragmented payment systems that make them practically inaccessible in a moment of crisis. This, he argued, exacerbated his range anxiety and left him with no realistic alternative but to park where he did.

It is, frankly, a well-articulated argument. Anyone who has desperately hunted for a working public charger in London will recognise the frustration he describes.

What the Council Argued

The council's position was straightforward: the photographic evidence and officer notes established that the vehicle was in a controlled bay without a permit and without payment. The contravention had occurred. The reasons behind it were not, in the council's view, a matter for the enforcement process.

The Decision: Appeal Refused

The adjudicator refused Mr Hashi's appeal. The PCN stands.

This was not a close call, legally speaking — though it may feel like an injustice to many readers. The adjudicator acknowledged Mr Hashi's explanation but found it could not succeed for two distinct reasons.

The Legal Reasoning: Breaking It Down

1. The "Beyond Your Control" Defence Has a Very High Bar

In parking law, there is a recognised principle that a driver should not be penalised for something that was genuinely beyond their control — a sudden mechanical failure, for example, or a medical emergency that prevented them from moving the vehicle. This is sometimes called the res ipsa or "unavoidable circumstances" argument.

The critical word here is unpredictable. The adjudicator drew a sharp distinction: had Mr Hashi's vehicle unexpectedly lost power — in the way a petrol car might suffer a sudden fuel system failure — that might have provided a legitimate defence. The vehicle would have been stranded, and parking without payment would have been genuinely unavoidable.

But that is not what happened. An EV's battery level is visible to the driver at all times. The charge does not vanish without warning. Mr Hashi knew, or ought to have known, that his battery was low before he reached the point of crisis. The adjudicator's reasoning is essentially: low battery is a foreseeable condition, not an unpredictable emergency.

2. The Bay Was Payable — So Payment Was Always an Option

This is the second, and perhaps more decisive, legal point. The bay Mr Hashi parked in was not exclusively for permit holders. It was a resident permit holder or pay bay — meaning any driver, permit or not, could park there lawfully by paying the required charge.

The adjudicator noted that even if Mr Hashi had been forced to stop there in an emergency, he could have paid the charge to regularise his parking. He did not do so. That failure meant he could not argue that the contravention was beyond his control — because the simple act of paying was always within his control.

This is a subtle but important point. It is not enough to have a good reason for stopping somewhere; you must also have a good reason for not paying once you have stopped.

3. Mitigation Is Not a Defence

The adjudicator was explicit about this: he is not permitted to take mitigation into account when deciding whether a contravention occurred. This is a fundamental feature of parking law. The tribunal's role is to determine whether the rules were broken — not whether the driver deserves sympathy. Arguments about inadequate infrastructure, range anxiety, and the failures of public charging networks may be valid policy criticisms, but they belong in a letter to your MP, not in a parking appeal.

This does not mean adjudicators are heartless. It means the legal framework simply does not give them the power to cancel a PCN on the grounds that the driver's situation was difficult. The question is always binary: did the contravention happen, or didn't it?

Lessons for Drivers: What to Take Away

1. Know Your Battery Before You Leave Home

The single most practical lesson from this case is that range management is your responsibility. Courts and tribunals will not accept low battery as an emergency defence in the way they might accept a sudden mechanical failure. Plan your journey with charging in mind, especially in areas where public infrastructure is patchy.

2. If You Must Stop in a Pay Bay, Pay Immediately

If you find yourself in a controlled bay — even in an emergency — check whether it is a pay bay and, if so, pay the charge straight away. Even if you intend to appeal later, paying demonstrates good faith and, crucially, means no contravention has occurred. You can seek a refund through the appeals process if you believe the circumstances warranted it.

3. "I Had No Choice" Needs to Mean Truly No Choice

The "beyond my control" defence is real, but it requires the situation to have been both unpredictable and unavoidable. A gradually depleting battery that you were aware of does not meet that threshold. A sudden, unexpected loss of power — with no warning and no ability to move — might. The distinction matters enormously.

4. Infrastructure Complaints Belong Elsewhere

Mr Hashi's frustration with Haringey's charging infrastructure is understandable and, arguably, well-founded. But a tribunal is not the forum for that argument. If you believe your local authority is failing EV drivers, contact your councillor, raise it with the council directly, or engage with campaign groups working on EV infrastructure policy. Those arguments can change things; they just cannot cancel a PCN.

5. Document Everything — Even If You Lose

If you genuinely believe you faced an unavoidable parking situation, gather evidence: screenshots of your battery level, timestamps, photographs of the location, records of any charging points you attempted to use. Even if your appeal fails at tribunal, a well-documented case can sometimes support a discretionary cancellation at the informal stage — before the matter reaches an adjudicator at all.

The Key Takeaway

A foreseeable problem is not an emergency defence. Electric vehicle drivers face real and genuine challenges with public charging infrastructure — but the law draws a firm line between an unpredictable breakdown and a predictable low-battery situation. If you can see the problem coming, you are expected to solve it before it becomes someone else's problem. Park in a pay bay without paying, and the law will hold you responsible — regardless of how understandable your reasons were.

Mr Hashi's case is not a story about an unfair system grinding down a reasonable driver. It is a story about a legal framework that is precise, consistent, and — for better or worse — entirely unmoved by the imperfect reality of EV ownership in 2024. The infrastructure may be inadequate. The payment systems may be fragmented. But until the law changes, the responsibility for managing those gaps sits firmly with the driver.