Council Tax Summons

[Carolegal]

I have been challenging my local authority on the legality of council tax. My argument is that the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 Sections 21, 23, 26 Paras 1 and 2 and Section 91 Paras 1 and 2, applies and that in order to make payment I am entitled to receive and invoice. Of course the council disputes this. A summons was issued dated 15th August 2025 to attend the magistrates court on 1.10.25. I continued to dispute the councils position and two days before I was due to attend court I received an email.

The relevant part follows:

"A complaint was sent to ........Magistrates Court on 18th August 2025, and this was approved by ....... Magistrates court on 01 September 2025. A Summons notice was then issued to you by post for the hearing on 01 October 2025. I can confirm the correct procedure has been followed."

This clearly means that an illegal summons was sent to me by the local authority before permission had ever been agreed by the Magistrates Court.
I did, however attend the court on the date given, and had a discussion with a local authority officer. I established that she had no legal training or qualifications. I informed her that I had not received a response from their legal department to a letter I had sent them requesting answers to the following questions:

1. A legally valid court summons, issued by the court. Please note that I have attended the local magistrates’ court who inform me that they know nothing about said summons.
2. If it is the case (and I know that it is) that the ..... Council have (illegally) created and issued the supposed “Court Summons”, please identify what law, passed by Parliament, that states unequivocally that a Local Authority issuing a Court Summons without the knowledge of the Courts is fully legal.
3. I am still awaiting a copy of the Prosecution Bundle that will be used to obtain the Liability Order. In particular I need to be able to check that the Court has been informed that I have never refused to make a payment, and had only ever requested, and awaited the arrival of an Invoice. In consequence, the only party to be in any kind of default is yourselves and not me personally.
4. Where, in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (LGFA1992) – or any ensuing Regulations is the specific exemption to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882?

I requested a response to the 4 issues I raised, to be sent to me by letter, signed in wet ink by a fully qualified solicitor, (not a paralegal) with the signees qualifications provided under the signature.

The council officer agreed that she would arrange this, and suggested that my case be adjourned until the end of the month. This was confirmed in writing.

Now I have a couple of questions for anyone reading the above who can help.

a) Will a further summons be issued or
b) Will the original summons be reused or
c) Will the council use the original summons as authorisation to send a follow up summons. (Yes I know the original was illegal so I'm hoping they will use that one)

Anyway, I hope anyone reading this has found it interesting, and if anyone out there can help I would greatly appreciate it.

[islandgirl]

As far as I know this is how it works. Councils issue a notice telling you your liability order case will be heard on a certain day and you have the option to come to court. They submit liability orders to the court. If one of those is yours and you turn up it is heard in front of the mags. If you do not turn up it is simply signed and you then have a liability order against you. I sign liability orders all the time and have also heard representations in court. This is not a traditional summons as I understand it. You can inform the court you have never refused to pay and bring your evidence. Often if people do turn up they are seen in the corridor and do not appear in front of us.
Your case may be unusual but it does have a slight hint of freeman on the land - I hope that is not the case!

[PallasAthena]

CT is a statutory tax not a contract and so the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 does not apply. It's freeman on the land nonsense.

[atticus]

Where did you get that argument about the Bills of Exchange Act? You have been very badly advised. Looking at those sections, it is abundantly clear that they do not apply to Council Tax.

You are in a hole. Do not dig it deeper.

[atticus]

I aked google who is saying that the Bills of Exchange Act applies to Council Tax. Here is the AI overview in the search result.

Claims that the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 applies to council tax are made by adherents of the Freeman on the Land movement and similar groups. These claims are not legally valid and are based on misunderstandings of how council tax is collected in the United Kingdom.
Why the claims are invalid
Multiple local councils and legal sources have debunked this claim and confirmed that:

• Council tax is a statutory charge, not a contract. Your liability for council tax is established by the Local Government Finance Act 1992, not by an agreement or contract with the council.
• Consent is not required. Because council tax is a statutory charge, residents do not need to provide their consent or a signature for it to be legally enforceable.
• The Bills of Exchange Act is irrelevant. The Bills of Exchange Act deals with negotiable financial instruments like cheques and promissory notes, not statutory taxes. Councils state that any reference to this Act is irrelevant to council tax liability.
• A "bill" is not a Bill of Exchange. The council tax demand notice, while colloquially called a "bill," is not a Bill of Exchange under the 1882 Act. It is a demand for payment issued under the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
• Legal action will be taken. If payment is withheld based on these arguments, local councils will proceed with recovery action.

The motivation behind the claim
The Freeman on the Land movement incorrectly believes that a person is only bound by contracts and laws to which they have personally consented. By falsely claiming that a council tax bill is a bill of exchange, they try to argue they are not legally obligated to pay without their explicit agreement. This claim has no legal basis and has been rejected by councils and the courts.

Some further reading for the OP: https://www.sutton.gov.uk/w/council-...legal%20advice.

[Carolegal]

I have been challenging my local authority on the legality of council tax. My argument is that the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 Sections 21, 23, 26 Paras 1 and 2 and Section 91 Paras 1 and 2, applies and that in order to make payment I am entitled to receive and invoice. Of course the council disputes this. A summons was issued dated 15th August 2025 to attend the magistrates court on 1.10.25. I continued to dispute the councils position and two days before I was due to attend court I received an email.

The relevant part follows:

"A complaint was sent to ........Magistrates Court on 18th August 2025, and this was approved by ....... Magistrates court on 01 September 2025. A Summons notice was then issued to you by post for the hearing on 01 October 2025. I can confirm the correct procedure has been followed."

This clearly means that an illegal summons was sent to me by the local authority before permission had ever been agreed by the Magistrates Court.
I did, however attend the court on the date given, and had a discussion with a local authority officer. I established that she had no legal training or qualifications. I informed her that I had not received a response from their legal department to a letter I had sent them requesting answers to the following questions:

1. A legally valid court summons, issued by the court. Please note that I have attended the local magistrates’ court who inform me that they know nothing about said summons.
2. If it is the case (and I know that it is) that the ..... Council have (illegally) created and issued the supposed “Court Summons”, please identify what law, passed by Parliament, that states unequivocally that a Local Authority issuing a Court Summons without the knowledge of the Courts is fully legal.
3. I am still awaiting a copy of the Prosecution Bundle that will be used to obtain the Liability Order. In particular I need to be able to check that the Court has been informed that I have never refused to make a payment, and had only ever requested, and awaited the arrival of an Invoice. In consequence, the only party to be in any kind of default is yourselves and not me personally.
4. Where, in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (LGFA1992) – or any ensuing Regulations is the specific exemption to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882?

I requested a response to the 4 issues I raised, to be sent to me by letter, signed in wet ink by a fully qualified solicitor, (not a paralegal) with the signees qualifications provided under the signature.

The council officer agreed that she would arrange this, and suggested that my case be adjourned until the end of the month. This was confirmed in writing.

Now I have a couple of questions for anyone reading the above who can help.

a) Will a further summons be issued or
b) Will the original summons be reused or
c) Will the council use the original summons as authorisation to send a follow up summons. (Yes I know the original was illegal so I'm hoping they will use that one)

Anyway, I hope anyone reading this has found it interesting, and if anyone out there can help I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you to everyone who very kindly responded to my enquiry. The main queries I need answers for are

a) Will a further summons be issued or
b) Will the original summons be reused or
c) Will the council use the original summons as authorisation to send a follow up summons.

This is important because the current summons is dated 15th August 2025. However, a complaint was not sent to the Magistrates Court until the 18th August (3 days after the actual summons was issued). The complaint was not validated by the courts until the 1st September 2025 (16 days after the actual summons was issued), so the Council operated outside of the law and the correct procedure was not followed.

As you can see, if I am able to attend court on the original summons then the case will at least have to be adjourned again. It begs the question of how often has the local authority done this and how many of the liability orders issued are invalid because the correct procedure has not been followed.

Again, if anyone is able to advise me on the above (a,b,c) I would greatly appreciate any information you can provide.

[atticus]

My answer is "none of the above", for the reason that the summons against you appears to be valid.

[islandgirl]

Did you attend on 1.10.25 as required? If not then it is almost certain that a Liability Order was granted.

[Carolegal]

Did you attend on 1.10.25 as required? If not then it is almost certain that a Liability Order was granted.

Thank you for your input. I did attend on 1.10.25 and met with a Council Tax representative. However I wrote to the Councils legal department on 23rd September. They did not respond to the issues I raised. The council representative agreed to an adjournment of my case to the 29th October so that their legal dept. could respond to my questions. She put the adjournment agreement in writing and I have it in an email. I also wrote to the council representative to confirm the details of our agreement. Confirmation was sent both by email and signed for letter.

In respect of the legality of the summons, it is completely illegal. I'm not going to raise this yet as there are other issues surrounding the illegal processes undertaken by the Revenues Dept. e.g. A summons was issued by the council on 15th August 2025. This is completely illegal - see Local Government Act 1888. The summons was issued despite no complaint having been raised with the courts, or any authorisation to issue a summons agreed by the courts until September.

It seems to me that the longer this goes on, the deeper the hole this Council is digging itself into. I will await the letter from the councils legal department, where I have specifically asked that a fully qualified solicitor be the signee (in wet ink) to the document. I doubt very much that I will get this because what they are doing is illegal in so many ways.

[Carolegal]

My answer is "none of the above", for the reason that the summons against you appears to be valid.

Hi, thank you for your reply. The summons was issued on 15th August. I have it in writing from a council representative that the complaint was not sent to the court until 18th August, 3 days after the summons (generated by the Council) had already been issued. The issuance of a summons was only approved by the court on the 1st September. Please can you explain how this can be a valid summons?

[islandgirl]

Thank you for the response - good that you went and it was adjourned. What do you want to happen next? Do you think that you will not be made to pay what you owe due to a "freeman on the land" technicality? If you owe the council tax what other reason is there for not paying it? I am confused as to what you hope to achieve (the whole FOTL stuff will not work).

[PallasAthena]

I will await the letter from the councils legal department, where I have specifically asked that a fully qualified solicitor be the signee (in wet ink) to the document. I doubt very much that I will get this because what they are doing is illegal in so many ways.

They do not have to comply with that request as it is not a legal requirement. More freeman on the land nonsense.

[Carolegal]

Thank you for the response - good that you went and it was adjourned. What do you want to happen next? Do you think that you will not be made to pay what you owe due to a "freeman on the land" technicality? If you owe the council tax what other reason is there for not paying it? I am confused as to what you hope to achieve (the whole FOTL stuff will not work).

Hi Islandgirl, and thank you for getting back to me. I am hoping to show that the demand for council tax is a total con and I won't be paying it.

Just to be clear, I have never used anything relating to the FOTL. I have been using actual law, namely the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 which the council argues does not apply to CT. However since the summons they served me is not lawful I am now pursuing other legal avenues. I have asked for a SAR from the Ministry of Justice, which I know will come back with nothing in my name being held by the courts, as the Council have done everything themselves. (Even an email I sent to the Court was simply passed on to the Council.)
The summons was simply printed on their own paper, which is completely illegal as per the Local Government Act 1888, section 78 (2) - to summarise - Councils cannot behave as a court, use the powers of a court or exercise any jurisdiction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts or perform any judicial business.
The Council have conducted the whole matter with zero court oversight, have hired the Court for their own purposes, have refused to give me access to the prosecution bundle and told me they didn't have to provide it. As the defendant I am legally entitled to know what I am being accused of. I actually know that there is no prosecution bundle because the Council have undertaken the whole procedure and a magistrate is merely going to rubber stamp a liability order in court without any evidence having been provided. I will be asking the Magistrate whether he/she is on their oath, which they cannot possibly be as the room in which the case will be heard has been hired by the Council for a specific purpose. It is not being used as a court of law.

[atticus]

Everything you have said, Carole Gal, is complete and utter bollocks. You appear to have fallen prey to the snake oil salesmen out there on the internet.

Please forget those ridiculous and very wrong arguments about the Bills of Exchange Act. They will get you nowhere except in worse trouble.

But if you want to get saddled with extra prosecution costs, so be it.

[PallasAthena]

Just to be clear, I have never used anything relating to the FOTL.

Really? Your posts are full of FOTL false assertions - irrelevant legislation, 'wet ink' signatures, documents signed by a solicitor, demands for magistrates to show their authority....

The only party digging themselves into a hole here is you. It's just going to cost you more when you have to pay in the end. Or even prison as a last resort if you work really hard at not paying.

I have been using actual law, namely the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 which the council argues does not apply to CT.

The council argues that because the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 has nothing whatsoever to do with Council Tax.

I have asked for a SAR from the Ministry of Justice, which I know will come back with nothing in my name being held by the courts, as the Council have done everything themselves.

It probably will come back with nothing but not for the reason you state. The MoJ doesn't hold records of individual court cases in Magistrates' courts. As the MoJ website says you need to direct your SAR to the court dealing with the matter. Although if it involves current legal proceedings a SAR may be rejected under the Crime and Taxation exemption and you should then use court document disclosure procedures instead.

The summons was simply printed on their own paper, which is completely illegal as per the Local Government Act 1888, section 78 (2) - ...

That Act says nothing of the sort. The council procedure you describe is legal (and customary) as MoJ have confirmed.

https://share.google/4BCSgbRXlO0y7rYVE