Calling out the crimes of TfL’s “official criminals”

Transport for London’s LEZ scheme is extortion, and should result in jail time

Martin Geddes Schedule of Fees

Before I dash out of the door, I want to share the notice I just sent to Transport for London, as they try to extort money out of me (£112.50 day in London, for private travel that is an inalienable right) — with three penalty charge notices already at £1,500, and a missing fourth one which would take it to £2,000. That is what I paid for my car when I bought it, so essentially they would steal my car off me. The state is run by gangsters, and after Covid, we owe them NOTHING. Push back lawfully, with all your might! These are just steps towards them taking EVERYTHING off you.

I have a long drive ahead of me this evening, so there was a deadline to get this out. Better a few typos and have it in the post than absolute perfection. A criminal mafia don’t deserve that level of diligence. I hope this is of use to others who come along behind me. As I need to get going, commentary on this lawfare will have to wait until another day. I have an email from Newcastle City Council too, who are also criminal fraudsters with their clean air zone, that dares me to take it to judicial review. I won’t stop — because they have to be stopped!

There’s little point messaging around at the civil level, in my experience, as there is zero remedy. The only hope we have is to push it to the criminal level, gather all the evidence we need, and if needed launch a private criminal prosecution. Perhaps the military JAGs will be taking this on in due course? If we’re the venom in the sting op, then that’s a poisonous price I am willing to carry (at least for now — I got a lungful of carbon monoxide from my corroding car this morning, so quite intoxicated enough for the time being).

I have put the important bit to read in the middle in bold.


In respect of PCNs: [REDACTED].

Whereas the above three PCNs have been received, with one presumptively missing, and payment has been sought by TfL for ULEZ and LEZ fees on two occasions for passage through the London low emission zone. The LEZ fee is based on a presumption that vans are operating in commerce. The car in question has registration [REDACTED], being a car derived van, model Ford Escort 55D, first registered in 2001. All travel in this car is for private purposes, with the car being my ordinary and usual conveyance, and solely insured for social, domestic, and pleasure use.

I draw your attention to the case of Payne & Ors v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 889, where Coca Cola and HMRC contested the tax classification of various vehicles. This case makes it clear that some vehicles are “multi-purpose”. Based on this case law, Transport for London (TfL) does not have the power to deem this car to be operated in commerce when it factually is not. That TfL actively denies the existence of multi-purpose vehicles on its own website, according itself unilateral power to deem what constitutes fact, is indicative of mens rea to commit a criminal act.

I hereby notify you that PCN [REDACTED] constitutes criminal fraud under sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, as well as the solicitation for a LEZ fee for travel on 17th February for which no PCN has been issued. The s2 fraud is the knowing misrepresentation of N1 class vehicles, which are multi-purpose, as being necessarily commercial in nature, this being done for financial gain. The fraud is compounded under s3 by the failure to inform that only representations made on the basis of administrative law will be considered; those based on criminal law, constitutional law, international law, civil tort, and equity will be disregarded. The public are directed to an administrative tribunal that will likewise fail to uphold superior law, acting as an accessory to extortion.

The fraud specifically relates to the LEZ fee and the misclassification for gain, as this is grossly inequitable when compared to an otherwise identical private conveyance with a saloon, hatchback, or estate body style. However, as fraud unravels everything, this invalidates all payments requested, including ULEZ, sought in relation to each passage through the low emission zone. It is unconscionable to ask a traveller to pay a fee on one basis (for ULEZ) when presented with a fraud for another fee (LEZ).

As a minor administrative matter, you have specified differing addresses for LEZ and ULEZ penalties, but in this situation they comprise a single issue. Based on my call to your contact centre today I am making all representations via the LEZ address. I trust this is in order. There appears to be a LEZ PCN missing, but the same principle applies to its paired ULEZ PCN; all is vitiated by fraud.

The civil tort in this case is the conversion of the property right to use the car for either private or commercial purposes, and turning it into a usage restriction. Furthermore, this loss of property right is a forfeit being imposed without any charge or conviction, and therefore is a breach of the Bill of Rights 1689. Parliament is constrained by constitutional law, and lacks authority to deny the public property rights without due process.

These PCNs are also unlawful discrimination, as they treat a class of private traveller (those who use car derived vans) differently with no balancing public interest, and are set at a level that infringes other protected human rights in statute and international law. The regulation of the body style of a private car, with a penalty equivalent to a fine, exceeds the authority delegated to TfL via statute.

TfL has a duty of inclusion and equality of treatment of the public, in accordance with its own charter and policies. The LEZ PCN is in breach of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 s33(1) requiring equality of opportunity for all people, which includes those who use car derived vans for solely private personal travel.

Details of the criminal fraud, civil tort, breach of equity principles, and other breaches of law are enclosed.

If TfL claims jurisdiction over travel on the public highway in a private carriage or conveyance, please provide proof of claim. Failure to offer such proof of claim will be taken that you agree that you lack jurisdiction over personal and private travel.

If TfL claims that this travel is commercial in nature, please provide proof of claim. Merely deeming it to be so, in opposition to the facts, and for monetary gain, is a crime. Failure to offer proof of claim will be taken that you agree that this is personal and private travel.

Given the unlawful nature of these PCNs, should you proceed with any further enforcement, you agree to my schedule of fees, which is enclosed.

In accordance with Leighton vs Bristow and Sutor [2023], I notify you that enforcement of unlawful debts are in breach of paragraph 66 of the Tribunals and Courts Enforcement Act 2007, and also constitute harassment, contrary to section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. All agents will be held jointly and severally liable.

I do not give permission for TfL to share my data with third parties, and any such breach is actionable under the Data Protection Act (2018).

Martin Geddes

Critically there’s a schedule of fees… so they will have to pay me if they lose in court:

This schedule of fees is presented in response to the receipt of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London, which I assert is fraudulent and has necessitated unnecessary expenditure of my time and resources. This document outlines the compensation required for dealing with the claim, on the premise that it lacks lawful standing and has been contested in good faith.

Notice and Administrative Fees

  1. Review and initial analysis of the PCN: £150.00
    • Includes the time taken to read, understand, and assess the validity of the notice received.
  2. Drafting initial correspondence disputing the PCN: £200.00
    • Compensation for the time and expertise required to formulate a detailed rebuttal to the initial notice.
  3. Handling and responding to subsequent communications: £100.00 per letter/email
    • This fee accounts for the time spent on each subsequent piece of correspondence related to the dispute.

Research and Consultation Fees

  1. Legal and regulatory research: £250.00
    • Covers time spent researching relevant laws, regulations, and precedents that support the dispute against the PCN.
  2. Consultation with legal professionals (if applicable): £500.00
    • Should consultation with a legal expert be necessary, this fee compensates for the cost incurred.

Miscellaneous Expenses

  1. Postage and materials: £50.00
    • Reimbursement for the cost of materials and postal services used in correspondence related to the PCN dispute.
  2. Travel expenses related to dispute resolution: £0.45 per mile
    • If physical attendance is required for resolution, this rate covers the cost of travel.

Compensation for Distress and Inconvenience

  1. Time compensation for distress and inconvenience: £1,000.00
    • Acknowledgment of the emotional impact and inconvenience caused by the wrongful issuance of the PCN.
  2. Court appearance (virtual or in person): £2,500.00

Total Fees Payable

The total amount due will be calculated based on the specific actions taken in response to the PCN, including all correspondence, research, consultations, and additional expenses as listed above.

Payment Terms

The total fees outlined above are due within 30 days of the date of this schedule. Payment can be made directly to the bank account details provided upon request.


This schedule of fees is issued without prejudice and is subject to adjustment based on the progression of the dispute resolution process.

By presenting this schedule, I affirm my position that the PCN in question was issued without just cause, and I reserve the right to seek full reimbursement for the costs incurred in its contestation.

Hope that helps someone… time to go to Wales for the weekend! Seeing old friends. It’s 3/22 today — Skull & Bones day — LSWH. Exciting few weeks ahead. My calendar is stuffed with craziness from social media.