The purpose of the summons is to issue a liability order, you aren't needed to attend. The hearing would be for you to dispute the liability order or make a plea of mitigation. At that point the civil magistrate can decide to make changes. The liability order is issued at the start because 99.99% of people don't turn up (as they aren't required to). This isn't like a CCj where the county court would hear the case to determine if there is a claim. With council tax, Mr A is due to pay, he hasn't paid, so the council apply for powers to collect the money owed. That is via a liability order. The idiots in the clip seem to think they were attending some sort of trial. The magistrate would have listened to mitigation and may have amended the order, the hearing would only have been to challenge the liability order. You can't challenge something that doesn't exist. I suspect also that he didn't properly respond to the summons.
Mitigation might have been, I'm a friggin idiot and lost all my money following Lay advisors (whatever they think they are). Please can I have some extra time to pay. Personally I'd sue the lay advisor, but I'm not sure if that is actually the same person.
If for one stupid moment we explore the idea of using freeman of the land arguments to dodge speeding fines. Then the first hurdle is to overcome the application for a driving license and the registration of a vehicle - all documents which you sign and pay fees for. So even if there is no consent to the statute, you've got offer, consideration and acceptance.. hmm smells like a contract to me.