Jurisdiction is not a self-evident fact. It is a claim, and a claim has to be supported. Most of the time the system never has to support its claim because nobody asks. The form is filled in, the call is taken, the appearance is made, and jurisdiction is established by the very act of engagement. Assumed jurisdiction is not foisted on you in some dramatic moment. It is accreted, one unchallenged interaction at a time, until it is too late to question without looking awkward.
This lesson is about the polite, specific letter that breaks the pattern.
How jurisdiction is normally established
In everyday administrative dealings, jurisdiction is established in one of three ways:
By statute. Parliament has passed an Act giving a body authority over a defined matter. HMRC has jurisdiction to assess and collect income tax under the Income Tax Acts. Local authorities have jurisdiction to bill council tax under the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Where the statute is clear and the body is acting within it, the jurisdiction is real and well-supported.
By contract. You have signed an agreement that gives the other party rights over you. The bank can debit your account because you signed the account opening form. The mobile provider can charge you because you signed the contract.
By assumption. Nobody can point to a specific statute or a specific contract that authorises this particular thing being done to you, but the parties have all behaved as if the authority exists, and so it does, in practice, until challenged.
The third category is far larger than people think. Many bailiff actions, many regulatory demands, many "you must" letters from agencies are operating in the assumed-jurisdiction zone. The body is acting because nobody has yet asked it to show its working.
The polite, specific letter
The technique is not to refuse the demand. Refusal triggers escalation. The technique is to ask, in writing, courteously and with a reference number, for the source of the authority being claimed.
Here is the shape of the letter. Use it in any matter where you suspect the body is overreaching its remit.
Dear Sir or Madam, Re: [Reference number] / [Matter, e.g. notice dated 14 March 2026]
I have received your correspondence dated [date] in which you assert that [paraphrase the demand]. Before I am able to address the substance of your letter, I require clarification of the following matters so that I may respond accurately and on the proper basis.
- The specific statute, regulation, or contractual provision under which you claim authority to make this demand of me;
- The section, subsection, or clause within that authority that you say applies to my circumstances;
- Confirmation of the named officer (with role and direct contact) who has decided that the cited authority applies in my case.
Please reply within 28 days. In the meantime I reserve all my rights and make no admissions.
Yours faithfully, [autograph], a living man/woman
CC: [your file]
Sent recorded delivery. Copy kept. That is the whole letter. It does not insult anyone. It does not invoke obscure legal arguments. It asks three questions any properly-grounded authority should be able to answer in a paragraph.
A worked example: the parking notice
You receive a "parking charge notice" from a private operator on a supermarket car park. It looks like a state-issued penalty (it is designed to). It demands £100 within 14 days, £60 if paid early. The letter cites no statute. There is a small "POPLA" appeals reference at the bottom.
Most people pay. Some refuse and escalate to a county court claim and lose because they argued substance without first establishing the basis on which they were being addressed. The disciplined response is the letter above, sent within the early-payment window, asking what authority the operator has to charge you anything.
The replies you receive will tell you everything:
- If the operator cites the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 schedule 4 and provides their landowner authority and signage compliance evidence, the demand has a basis. You then engage on the substance.
- If the operator cites nothing, repeats the demand, or sends an automated "your appeal has been rejected" reply that does not address your three questions, the demand is sitting in the assumed-jurisdiction zone. Repeat the request, in writing, dated, on file. In most cases the file will be quietly closed.
The same shape works for council tax demands you doubt, for HMRC penalties that look automatic, for utility demands on closed accounts, for any demand where the basis of authority has not been spelt out.
What the letter does and does not do
It does not magically remove the demand. It does not prevent escalation in cases where the authority is real. What it does is move the matter from the territory of assumption (where the body wins by default) to the territory of evidence (where the body has to do work). Many bodies, faced with even one polite letter asking for the source of authority, will not bother. The work of replying outweighs the value of pursuing one disputed file.
The letter also creates your record. If the matter does proceed to a tribunal or court, the existence of an unanswered request for authority is a strong piece of context. You did not refuse to engage. You asked the proper question and were met with silence.
Hold the line
The temptation, when something looks like an official letter, is to assume it must be official. Most of the time it is. Some of the time it is dressed up to look more official than it is. The polite, specific letter sorts the two without you having to know in advance which you are dealing with.
Do not write more than the template above. Do not pad it with case law you half-remember or constitutional arguments you found online. Three questions, dated, signed, sent. The discipline is in the brevity. The body has to write a longer letter than you did to answer it, and that asymmetry is the whole point.