London mayor was fined over an untaxed Nissan Micra he says he never owned as DVLA investigates the case.
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM — WEB DESK: London Mayor Sadiq Khan says he was the victim of a scam after being convicted and fined for failing to tax a 24-year-old Nissan Micra that he says he does not own.
Khan was convicted last month after the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) prosecuted him for keeping an unlicensed vehicle. He was ordered to pay a £220 fine, £85 in costs and £35.84 in unpaid vehicle tax.
Khan’s office has rejected the claim that he owned the vehicle and said it had been wrongly registered in his name.
DVLA investigating the case
The DVLA has launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the prosecution and is understood to be considering steps to reopen the case.
Khan’s spokesperson said the mayor was the victim rather than the perpetrator, describing the incident as a scam involving someone falsely stating that Khan owned the vehicle.
The spokesperson also said the DVLA was aware of the alleged conduct.
The conviction was issued after no plea was entered on Khan’s behalf. He was convicted in his absence through the Single Justice Procedure, a fast-track system used in England and Wales for certain lower-level offences.
Vehicle was allegedly registered to Khan
Court documents cited in reports show that the vehicle was a blue Nissan Micra first registered in 2002.
The DVLA alleged that Khan was the registered keeper after the vehicle’s annual tax expired in September 2025. The agency said Khan’s name and date of birth appeared against the vehicle in government records.
The car was reportedly identified as untaxed on January 24, 2026.
The DVLA then sent correspondence seeking confirmation of the vehicle owner’s identity. The letters went unanswered, leading to the prosecution.
Khan’s office says he had no connection to the car.
Online records indicate that the Nissan Micra was taxed again in February 2026.
DVLA letters sent to wrong address
The case took another unusual turn when court documents showed that correspondence addressed to Khan was sent to the wrong building.
Instead of being delivered to Transport for London’s offices, where Khan serves as chairman, the letters were sent to a nearby address occupied by Gordon Ramsay’s Bread Street Kitchen restaurant.
The two locations are close to each other in London’s Stratford area.
The addressing error could become significant if Khan seeks to demonstrate that he was unaware of the prosecution and therefore unable to respond before the conviction was entered.
Defendants convicted in their absence can seek to have proceedings reopened if they can establish that they did not know about the case.
Link to ULEZ controversy
The incident has also raised questions about whether the vehicle was deliberately registered in Khan’s name.
After Khan expanded London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) across the capital, some opponents of the policy threatened to register vehicles in his name in an attempt to make him responsible for associated charges.
City Hall sources told The Standard that there had been a significant increase in vehicles allegedly being falsely registered to the mayor around the time of the ULEZ expansion.
However, no individual has been publicly identified as responsible for the Nissan Micra registration, and the circumstances remain under investigation.
Controversy over Single Justice Procedure
Khan’s case has also renewed scrutiny of the Single Justice Procedure.
Introduced in 2015, the system allows magistrates to handle certain low-level criminal cases privately and without the defendant being present.
Critics have questioned the process following several cases in which people were convicted without appearing in open court.
The British government is reviewing the procedure amid broader concerns about how defendants are notified and how cases are processed.
In Khan’s case, the mayor could seek to have the conviction reopened. The DVLA could also apply to the court to reopen the proceedings if its investigation establishes that the prosecution was based on incorrect information.
