The Recent Mazur Ruling Indirectly Challenges Council Tax Enforcement

It spotlights unlawful practices, especially around bulk summonses and non-qualified staff involvement

CONSCIENTIOUS CURRENCY

The court’s recent decision in Julia Mazur and anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) primarily addressed the legality of non-qualified staff conducting reserved legal activities. However, its implications ripple into council tax enforcement in several ways:

• Unlawful Legal Activity by Non-Qualified Staff: In Mazur, the court ruled that non-qualified legal staff cannot lawfully carry out reserved legal activities, such as signing particulars of claim in debt recovery proceedings. This raises serious questions about the legality of council tax summonses bulk applications prepared or processed by council staff or contractors who lack proper legal qualifications.
• Challenge to Bulk Summonses: Councils issue thousands of council tax summonses in bulk, relying on automated systems and non-qualified personnel. The Mazur ruling suggests that such practices will be legally flawed if those involved are not authorised to perform litigation tasks, as conducting litigation is a reserved legal activity. This could render many bulk summonses procedurally invalid.
• Due Process and “Perfected Orders”: A related earlier ruling (see Peacekeepers article) emphasised that enforcement of council tax debts requires a perfected order from the magistrates’ court—not just administrative paperwork. This reinforces the need for proper judicial oversight and individualised scrutiny, which bulk summonses processing undermines.
• Statutory Jurisdiction Limits: Magistrates’ Courts operate under strict statutory jurisdiction for council tax matters. If councils or courts deviate from these rules—such as by issuing liability orders without proper procedure—their actions may be ultra vires (beyond legal authority) and void.

What This Means for Residents

• Grounds for Legal Challenge: Individuals facing non-payment of council tax enforcement proceedings may now have even stronger grounds to challenge liability orders and/or the bulk issue of summonses, especially if they suspect procedural irregularities, lack of judicial oversight, or involvement of unauthorised staff in preparing legal documents.
• Residents should also scrutinise costs and fees:
  • In R (on the application of Nicholson) v Tottenham Magistrates’ Court [2015], the High Court ruled that magistrates must scrutinise the costs claimed by councils at the liability order stage. Councils must provide a transparent breakdown, and magistrates must verify that the costs are reasonable and directly related to obtaining the liability order.
  • More recently, in Surrey Heath Borough Council v NMC (2024), the High Court found that costs added at the summons stage — before any liability order is granted — were unlawful. The court held that councils cannot pre-emptively add enforcement costs without judicial approval, reinforcing that costs must be tied to actual legal proceedings, not administrative assumptions.
• Mazur and Reserved Legal Activities: The Mazur ruling reinforces that only qualified individuals can carry out reserved legal activities. If council staff or contractors involved in preparing or signing bulk summonses applications are not properly authorised, the entire enforcement process may be invalid.
• Increased Accountability for Councils: Residents should demand transparency and challenge any part of the process that appears procedurally flawed.

Revisiting Who Actually Issues Non Payment of Council Tax Summonses

It will no doubt be helpful to revisit the process for issuing non payment of council tax summonses, so that people can put all the above together in their minds.

While magistrates’ courts are the legal authority that issue the summonses, in practice, local councils initiate and prepare the non payment of council tax summonses applications, often in bulk. Here’s how it typically works:

1. Councils prepare bulk applications when residents fall behind on council tax.
2. These applications include lists of names and amounts owed, often processed by automated systems.
3. The court then issue the summonses, but this is usually done administratively, often without individual judicial scrutiny of each case.
4. The summonses are then sent out by the council, sometimes with added costs, before a court hearing even takes place.

So whilst the court formally issue the summonses, the council drives the process — and that’s where legal challenges emerge.

The Obvious Pre-Existing Controversy Around Bulk Summonses

I have long argued about the bulk summonses issue because under English law, a summons must be issued by a magistrates’ court in accordance with the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Crucially, each summons must be considered individually by a justice of the peace or a legal adviser acting under delegated authority. In addition, the court must be satisfied that there is a case to answer before issuing a summons — this is the essence of judicial oversight.

The issue with bulk summonses is, of course, a complete lack of judicial oversight because bulk processing undermines the requirement for courts to consider each case individually.

The landmark case of R v Brentford Justices, ex parte Catlin [1975] confirmed that a summons is only valid if a magistrate has personally applied their mind to the evidence and decided to issue it. The court held that:

1. A summons is not validly issued unless a justice of the peace (or someone properly delegated) has considered the complaint and decided there is a case to answer.
2. The magistrate (or a legal adviser acting under proper delegated authority) must exercise independent judicial discretion — it cannot be a rubber-stamping exercise because the issue of a summons is a judicial process, NOT an administrative one.
3. If this process is not followed, the summons is void ab initio (invalid from the outset), not merely voidable.

This case should be cited to argue that bulk summonses issued without individual judicial scrutiny are unlawful. Although Catlin involved a criminal summons issued after an information was laid, the core legal principle is procedural, not limited to criminal law and the case confirms that issuing a summons is a judicial function, not an administrative one. Simply put, the issuance of a summons ALWAYS requires a magistrate or a legal adviser acting under proper delegated authority to personally apply their mind to the complaint and decide whether there is a case to answer. Failure to do so is a dereliction of duty.

We know that local authorities submit thousands of council tax complaints in bulk, and magistrates’ courts issue summonses en masse. Hence, if:

• No magistrate or proper delegated officer personally reviews each complaint, and/or
• The process is automated or delegated improperly, and/or
• The court relies solely on council-prepared lists without scrutiny,

Then, under Catlin, these summonses should be treated as invalid.

Why the Mazur Ruling Matters In Addition to the Above

The Mazur case didn’t directly address council tax, but it highlighted a legal principle: only qualified individuals can carry out reserved legal activities, such as preparing and signing court documents. If councils are using non-qualified staff or contractors to prepare or sign off on bulk summonses applications — even before the court formally issue the summonses — it could be argued that the process is legally flawed.

So whilst Mazur is not about council tax enforcement, it reinforces that only qualified individuals can carry out reserved legal activities. Therefore, if councils or contractors are involved in this process without proper authority, summonses may be invalid from the outset for this reason.

The Mazur case – along with other recent rulings – has reignited scrutiny of who is preparing and processing council tax enforcement applications If non-qualified staff are involved in preparing legal documents or if courts are issuing summonses without proper oversight, the entire enforcement chain — including liability orders and bailiff actions — should be challenged.

Consequences of Invalid Summonses

• Liability orders based on defective summonses may be unlawful.
• Costs added at the summons stage could be challenged and refunded, especially in light of the Nicholson ruling and the recent Surrey Heath case.
• Enforcement actions (e.g., bailiff visits, deductions from wages or benefits) could be halted or reversed.

If you’re facing enforcement or want to challenge a liability order, you should request:

1. A copy of the original summons and liability order.
2. Evidence that the summons was issued with proper judicial oversight.
3. Details of who prepared and signed the application, together with proof that they are entitled to carry out reserved legal activities. Be careful here: just being provided with a person’s qualifications — such as paralegal, FCILEx, or solicitor — is not enough. You need to ask for proof that they are authorised to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007.

The Million-Pound Question: How Have Councils Been Getting Away With This for So Long?

Frankly, I see no need to answer this with anything other than what follows — and I leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions. But the question cuts to the heart of how systemic procedural shortcuts have been allowed to persist, even when they contradict established case law. It almost feels like fraud. Because Catlin should have stopped bulk summonses decades ago.

In this respect, lawyers, magistrates, and the entire court apparatus should hang their heads in shame.

Let’s be clear: this is not a case of legal nuance — it’s a case of administrative convenience overriding legal precision. And that’s being generous:

• Courts and councils have developed administrative workarounds to cope with the volume of cases.
• Magistrates routinely rubber-stamp entire batches of summonses, relying on council-submitted spreadsheets without reviewing individual complaints.
• This practice has become normalised, even though it violates the principle laid down in Catlin — that issuing a summons is a judicial act requiring personal consideration.

This is not merely a “technical failure” – it is a denial of justice to ordinary citizens. Magistrates’ courts — which are supposed to uphold the law — have instead outsourced scrutiny to local authorities in council tax cases, trusting their internal processes and accepting applications at face value. That is not justice. It is abdication. And it raises serious concerns about the rule of law and equality before it — two principles I’ve long argued are being eroded.

For years, I’ve said the law has been weaponised against the public, used not to protect but to punish. These council tax non payment cases are the clearest evidence yet. Maybe now, people are finally starting to wake up to the legal and constitutional failures we are living through daily.

Thank you for reading this article. If you have enjoyed it please consider subscribing to my Substack – it’s free. If you have received value from this article or any of my work at all, you can, if you wish to and can afford it, buy me a coffee to support my work. The link is buy me a coffee or you can access direct by copying the following https://buymeacoffee.com/claredwillb

---

This article (The Recent Mazur Ruling Indirectly Challenges Council Tax Enforcement) was created and published by Clare Wills Harrison and is republished here under “Fair Use”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.