Freeman of the Land and Council Tax

Acts of Parliament are statutes which set out the law. You can read more about Acts of Parliament here.

Some residents have asked whether Acts and Statutes are an obligation on them, and about the difference between a Statute and Law and other similar questions regarding legal matters. Acts of Parliaments are Statutes which set out the law. If you have questions regarding other Acts of Parliament or laws, these should be directed to a legal professional, not the council.

Very occasionally we get people who are convinced that using an archaic law means that they don’t have to pay Council Tax and there are many misleading articles and templates on the internet regarding the legality of Council Tax. Anyone drawing on these for advice should exercise caution and seek proper legal advice before using them as a defence against Council Tax liability based on contract, consent and common law.

Those relying on copied articles from sources such as Facebook using arguments based on Notice of Conditional Acceptance, including those quoting the Magna Carta 1215, Halsbury’s Laws of England, Misprision of Treason and threats that ‘ignorance is no defence in law’, should be aware these arguments have no legal basis with which to support non-payment of Council Tax. Such arguments are not accepted by us and will not result in the halting or withdrawal of legal action to recover outstanding Council Tax charges.

While we do our best to answer all relevant enquiries about Council Tax, we reserve the right to refuse to respond to lengthy spurious enquiries that focus on hypothetical arguments that have no basis in statute which use our resources at the expense of other taxpayers.

Relevant Cases

• In the Manchester Magistrates' Court v McKenzie (2015) case, an individual who attempted to use similar 'freeman on the land' defences in court ended up in prison for 40 days.
• In Leighton v Bristow & Sutor (2023) the High Court confirmed that extracts from a "court list" paired with a signature certifying the number of Liability Orders made led the Judge to conclude that the Liability Orders have indeed been made.  The case found that the wording of the Enforcement Agents Authority to Act was technically incorrect as it implied that the Authority to Act presented to the debtor gave the authority to take control of goods rather than the act (Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and all Regulations made under it.)
• In Kofa v Oldham (2024) a High Court case which addressed the arguments of no contract/consent given to pay council tax and the requirement for the issue of written Liability Orders/Court Orders.  This case confirmed that laws are considered binding, made by an elected Parliament on behalf of the whole country, therefore, no individual contract is required, and it is both "impossible and inappropriate" to gain individual consent.  The Judge went on to confirm that Magistrates Courts do not produce or serve paper orders and are not required to do so.  The only requirement is that the order is made (i.e. by the court pronouncing it is making it) and the fact that it was made can be proved, thus a paper order is unnecessary.