The vehicle involved does not belong to the Mayor or Transport for London (TfL), it is understood.
Sadiq Khan (Image: Getty)
Lord Sadiq Khan of Tooting has been convicted and fined in a controversial fast-track court system over an alleged motoring offence. It has been denounced as a “scam” by his team. The Mayor of London was accused of not taxing a 24-year-old Nissan Micra, but it is understood that vehicle does not belong to him, raising the possibility that the decision by magistrates was wrong. He was convicted last month of keeping an unlicensed vehicle in a criminal prosecution brought by the DVLA.
It was heard in a private hearing of the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) in Herefordshire. Lord Khan was convicted in his absence and ordered that he pay a £220 fine, £85 in costs and settle the £35.84 bill for unpaid tax on the Micra. It is not known if this will be appealed.
A spokesperson for Lord Khan told The Express: “This is a scam, which is a crime. It’s not the first time the Mayor has been victim of a scam involving people falsely stating that Sadiq is the owner of a vehicle. Such behaviour is illegal, and the DVLA are aware.”
The DVLA is urgently looking at getting the case reopened with a view to withdrawing the prosecution, and will also investigate a purported false registration, The Express has been told.
The DVLA is now reviewing the case and investigating the circumstances of the prosecution, the Press Association reports.
After Lord Khan’s expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), critical motorists said they planned to register their car in the mayor’s name – supposedly to make him liable for the £12.50 daily charge.
Court documents show that DVLA letters addressed to the mayor about the unpaid tax bill were sent to Gordon Ramsay’s east London restaurant, instead of the nearby TfL offices.
The Single Justice Procedure was invented in 2015 as a cheaper method of dealing with low-level criminal cases, allowing magistrates to sit alone and in private to hand out convictions rather than sitting in open court.
Critics of the system have dubbed it “conveyor belt justice”, with magistrates deciding on hundreds of cases a day and sometimes spending less than a minute making each decision.
The system is currently under Government review.
In Lord Khan’s case, court records show he was prosecuted by the DVLA after the annual tax on the blue Nissan Micra, which was first registered in 2002, ran out in September 2025.
The DVLA accused him of being the keeper of the vehicle when it was spotted as being untaxed on January 24, telling the court that his name and date of birth appear against the car on official records held by the Government.
The agency claimed a letter asking for confirmation of the identity of the car owner went unanswered in January, leading to a criminal prosecution.
Lord Khan serves as the chairman of TfL as part of his mayoral role, and the organisation has its offices on the 9th floor of 5 Endeavour Square in Stratford.
However, court papers show the DVLA sent its letters to 9 Endeavour Square, a two-minute walk away from the TfL base, in a building where Gordon Ramsay’s Bread Street Kitchen, Bar & Rooftop occupies the top floor.
Magistrate Surinder Gidda, sitting at Herefordshire Magistrates’ Court, convicted Lord Khan on August 18 after no plea had been entered to the charge.
The court has also sent a record of conviction to the Gordon Ramsay restaurant, ordering Lord Khan to pay the £340.84 court bill within 28 days or face the prospect of increased fines, bailiffs, or even “a warrant for your arrest to bring you to court”.
Defendants who believe they have been wrongly convicted of a crime in their absence can apply for the case to be reopened, typically by appearing in person in front of a judge to make a statutory declaration.
Lord Khan could argue that he did not know about the criminal case because the letters were addressed to the wrong building.
Once reopened, he could petition the DVLA to withdraw the prosecution if it can be shown that he has been wrongly accused, or enter a not guilty plea.
Alternatively, the DVLA could apply to the court itself for the case to be reopened.