A frozen account.
A writ against goods.
Where is the costs evidence?

10–21 March 2025

£3,500 assessed. £1,750 ordered. Show the working.

The underlying order exists. The dispute concerns its evidential foundation and whether the supporting costs material was supplied to Miss E.

The 10 March order expressly deferred costs and allowed written submissions to the court and each other by 4pm on 17 March, for determination on paper. The order dated 21 March 2025 records a £3,500 schedule, allocates half to the relevant applications and makes Miss E liable for £1,750 including VAT, payable by 9 April. Its recital refers to a 12 March hearing—a date to reconcile with the earlier directions.

The documents therefore put the assessment at £3,500, not £3,600. A transmission at 15:37 on 17 March could meet the later-submissions deadline. What remains unresolved is the original schedule, its itemisation and proof that the material reached Miss E—not simply whether 17 March followed the hearing.

Paul Mitchell (Designated Civil Judge for Cornwall, Devon and Dorset; Exeter Combined Court Centre): which costs documents and submissions supported the paper assessment, and where can the paying party inspect them?

October 2025 / The third-party debt order

Money was restricted before the questions were resolved.

HSBC’s 27 October response, forwarded the following day, says it received an interim third-party debt order on 7 October and secured funds pending further directions. The original order sought £1,750 plus a £135 fee: £1,885.

Miss E and Mr J describe severe hardship from restrictions on money used for her living expenses. They say the enforcement increased pressure on a pensioner already fighting to obtain the costs evidence. The reviewed bank response confirms the restriction; it does not establish that the restricted money was paid to Mayo.

An interim TPDO can operate without advance notice and initially restricts funds rather than authorising payment. The questions are the exact order relied on, subsequent service and corrections, hardship handling and what eventually happened to the restricted money. CPR 72: bank orders, service and hardship.

One decision? Different names and dates.

Explain the changes with the original record.

The corrections followed the family’s challenges. Mary Kelly’s 12 November explanation describes one judicial act recorded incorrectly. Jo Copp (Civil, Family and Tribunals Delivery Manager, Barnstaple and Exeter Courts, in the 2025–2026 court correspondence), the Civil, Family and Tribunals Delivery Manager identified in the court correspondence, later relayed District Judge Richard Lloyd Griffiths’s confirmation that he made the order and staff entered the wrong name and then the wrong date.

That explanation needs an audit trail. Identify the original decision, the instruction to draw the order, each alteration and the copies sent to the bank and parties. A later assurance does not let readers reconstruct those events.

Challenge first. Changes afterwards.

Calling it a “slip” does not supply the audit trail.

The changes followed the October challenges. Miss E and Mr J reject the suggestion that this sequence can be adequately explained without producing the original decision record and the authority for each amendment.

1. 7 October 2025 · The original order.

   The N84 names Paul Mitchell. HSBC subsequently confirms receipt on that date.

2. 25–27 October · The challenge.

   Mr J’s complaint and sent emails question authorisation, service and the account restriction.

3. 29 October · A different judge is identified.

   Copp’s reply, quoted in Miss E’s 30 October response, attributes the order to Richard Lloyd Griffiths.

4. 10 November · An amended copy is supplied.

   It names Griffiths and bears a 30 October decision date, rather than 7 October. The record must establish when that copy was actually created and authorised.

5. 12 November–5 December · The explanation.

   Mary Kelly invokes the slip rule on 12 November. Copp’s 5 December email relays Griffiths’s confirmation that he made the order and says staff entered first the wrong name, then the wrong date; it refers to an earlier communication on 18 November.

The legal test: correct the record, not substitute a different decision.

CPR 40.12 permits correction of an accidental slip or omission “at any time”. A party may apply for correction without notice. A later correction is not prohibited merely because it followed a challenge or has material consequences. The question is whether it accurately records the court’s original intention rather than introducing a different decision. Santos-Albert v Ochi [2018] EWHC 1277 (Ch), paragraphs 24–27.

CPR 40.2 requires the decision-maker’s name and judicial title, subject to listed exceptions, and the date on which the order was made. Those entries must be traceable to the actual decision.

Miss E’s opposition also requires an answer: PD 40B paragraph 4.4 says an opposed correction application should, if practicable, be listed before the original judge. The direction also permits applications without a hearing in appropriate circumstances. What process was followed here, how were her objections determined, and where is the record?

ENF-14: who changed the record? · ENF-15: how was the objection determined?

Institutional responsibility / Not just an individual reply

HMCTS must account for the handling of its court record.

Jo Copp is identified in the 2025–2026 correspondence as Civil, Family and Tribunals Delivery Manager, Barnstaple and Exeter Courts. The appropriate route for complaints about that administrative role is HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), not the JCIO. The JCIO expressly excludes court staff.

Miss E and Mr J allege deliberate manipulation in favour of the claimant and seek investigation of its practical effect on them. The response must identify the records, the authority and the people responsible—not simply repeat that an error occurred. Any alleged connection to a party is a matter to investigate; none has been established in the reviewed material.

Who should examine it?

1. HMCTS senior management. Request an uninvolved reviewer and identification of Copp’s responsible senior manager. The formal complaints route provides an initial response, senior-manager review and then the User Investigations Team. Official complaints procedure.
2. HMCTS Counter Fraud. The official address for suspected fraud, bribery or corruption involving HMCTS is HMCTScounterfraud@justice.gov.uk. A referral should identify the exact versions, correspondence, disputed acts and reasons for suspecting deliberate conduct. Ministry of Justice reporting guidance.
3. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. External escalation after the HMCTS process is exhausted, generally through an MP. HMCTS identifies a direct route for qualifying complaints under the Victims’ Code. Escalation requirements.

The JCIO is a separate route for qualifying judicial personal misconduct; it cannot overturn orders or review costs decisions. HMCTS complaints likewise cannot reverse judicial decisions. JCIO remit and exclusions.

ENF-16–ENF-19: distribution, review, prejudice and referral · Open the HMCTS question record →

Which version was actually delivered?

Mr J reports that Mayo later delivered a Mitchell-named copy after the court had attributed the decision to Griffiths. He also recalls that version being used at the Dagnall hearing. The hand-delivered copy and its date remain to be matched to the court’s amendment record.

The original Mitchell TPDO has been located in Miss E’s March exhibit EE27. In the claimant’s March pack examined, the Mitchell documents are the separate underlying costs orders, not a TPDO. The hearing transcript and exact copy are needed to establish any further reliance on a superseded order. ENF-04: produce the service record →

A separate enforcement step / WC000101/2026

The writ reached the wrong issuing office. The order says so.

The later writ concerned three costs sums: £1,750 + £2,112 + £1,636.80 = £5,498.80. A writ of control concerns enforcement against goods; it is not an eviction order. Mr J describes the distress and threatened loss of possessions associated with its pursuit.

The sealed 10 March 2026 order of Master Dagnall states that the writ should have issued through Barnstaple District Registry, not Central Office. It records that the High Court Enforcement Officer accepted the Central Office error. The order identifies that officer as Claire Louise Sandbrook (Authorised High Court Enforcement Officer, Shergroup; identified in the 10 March 2026 order), also identified by Shergroup as its founder and CEO.

Dagnall waived the procedural errors under CPR 3.10, transferred the writ and application to Bristol and continued the stay until 13 April 2026. That was the March position, not a statement of the current stay status.

Two further discrepancies are visible in Dagnall’s sealed order: it twice prints 9 February 2025, although the correspondence concerns 2026, and refers to N460 where the costs correspondence concerns N260. Have those entries been corrected, and which source documents were checked?

A court officer may certify an N293A; that administrative step is distinct from the judicial costs decision and the issuing of the writ. CPR 40.14A · CPR 83.9 and 83.19.

The document was requested again

“It was sent.” Then show it.

Mr J’s email sent after the 10 March hearing records his account that Mark John Mayo (claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon) said the N260 had been sent on 17 March 2025 by his solicitors and could be sent again. The message is addressed to Cornwell, sent to Seldons and copied to Mayo and Miss E. It asks for the schedule and documentary proof of service.

1. 10–11 March 2026 · The direct request.

   Mr J asks for the exact N260 and the email chain or other record proving the claimed sending date. The hearing was on 10 March; the inbox displays the post-hearing message on 11 March in the local time zone.

2. 17 March · The firm’s answer.

   Seldons’ letter asserts that the N260 was sent to the court and copied to Miss E on 17 March 2025 at 15:37. It acknowledges the suggestion that it be sent again but says the claimant will provide no further documentation unless required. It does not reproduce that original schedule or service message.

3. 18 March · The renewed challenge.

   Mr J replies that the response supplies neither the N260 nor documentary proof of service. He again asks for both and challenges the gap between the claimed transmission and continued non-production.

Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell (SRA 664668; solicitor and partner, Seldons LLP, Bideford, Devon): what prevents production of the very email and attachment your firm says already exist? Mark John Mayo: which document supports the account reported from the hearing?

The firm did respond; the unresolved issue is production, not an absence of any reply. Its 20 March email addresses a separate question about the March 2026 hearing papers. The earlier costs schedule and original service record have not been located in this review, and the family says they remain unprovided.

Refusal and intended enforcement / The same letter

The costs were pursued.
Why refuse the document said to support them?

Seldons LLP’s 17 March 2026 letter asserts that the N260 supporting the 21 March 2025 costs order was sent to the court and copied to Miss E on 17 March 2025 at 15:37. Miss E disputes receiving it. The firm acknowledges Dagnall’s suggestion that the document be resent.

The letter closes in the name of Seldons LLP, with file reference LC/2111. The identity of its individual author and approver is a question for the firm, not an assumption.

The letter says earlier voluntary disclosure prompted accusations of fraud and falsification, and maintains that the costs order had not been appealed and this challenge was not properly before the court. Why did those stated reasons justify refusing to reproduce the N260 that the firm says had already been served?

Named responsibilities. Direct answers.

• Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell — solicitor and partner, Seldons LLP, Bideford; individual SRA 664668. What did you personally verify, draft or approve? Which original email and attachment did you inspect?
• Seldons LLP — who authorised the refusal, what reasons were recorded, and why was the document not reproduced? Identify the responsible decision-maker and supervision.
• Mark John Mayo — claimant. What document and transmission record support the account attributed to you at the hearing? The firm disputes that you promised to arrange resending; the transcript should resolve what was said.

Questions for the Solicitors Regulation Authority

The SRA should examine the refusal and proposed enforcement together, test the service assertion and establish personal responsibility. A repeated assertion of service does not resolve a disputed question of service.

1. Obtain the original N260, email and available transmission records.
2. Identify who drafted, approved and instructed the refusal.
3. Establish what file checks supported the assertion and any inability to produce it.
4. Assess fairness, honesty and integrity towards a vulnerable, unrepresented opponent.
5. Decide whether investigation is warranted and give evidence-specific reasons.

The professional standards: Code 1.2 prohibits unfair advantage; 1.4 addresses misleading acts and omissions; 2.4 requires a properly arguable basis for assertions. Code 7.4 requires prompt, full and accurate responses to SRA requests for information and documents. The SRA’s disputes guidance calls for particular care towards vulnerable or unrepresented opponents. Its Principles place relevant public-interest duties ahead of a client’s interests where they conflict.

SRA Code · Conduct in disputes · Principles · Investigation threshold

Source: Seldons LLP, 17 March 2026, LC/2111, June trial bundle PDF pages 741–743; Mr J’s post-hearing request and 18 March follow-up. Read the request and response chronology →

The link to the existing investigation

From asking for the schedule to an order refusing disclosure.

Miss E’s November and December 2025 letters already challenged the calculation. The later order recording the 19 August 2026 hearing before Leslie Adrian Blohm (Senior Circuit Judge and Designated Civil Judge, Bristol; appointed to the Western Circuit in October 2022) expressly refuses the application for disclosure of N260 forms underlying costs orders subject to potential challenge.

How is Miss E to test the claimed service and calculation if the source documents are not supplied? The refusal, its reasons and her protective appeal belong beside the enforcement history—not in a disconnected footnote.

Read the three published review-letter images → Read the disclosure refusal and appeal → Open the published refusal order →

19 questions / Named responsibilities

Answer the record.

These questions consolidate the documented requests and new points from this review. They are published here and have not yet been sent by The Unanswered Record.

Source record / Reviewed 24 September 2026

What this branch is built on.

1. The 10 and 21 March 2025 court orders: costs deferred, written-submission deadline and later £1,750 award.
2. Original 7 October TPDO; amended 30 October copy; court correspondence of 29 October, 12 November and 5 December.
3. HSBC response dated 27 October 2025, forwarded on 28 October.
4. Specific-disclosure application and V Mullen’s 8 October reply.
5. Sealed Dagnall order dated 10 March 2026, circulated by KB Enforcement on 11 March.
6. Mr J’s post-hearing request, Seldons’ LI Email to Defendants 17.3.26.pdf, Mr J’s 18 March reply and Cornwell’s 20 March email.
7. Copp/Miss E correspondence about the N293A, 23 February–25 March 2026.
8. Published November and December requests and published disclosure-refusal and appeal records.

Next evidence: the hearing transcript, the reported seal recording, the exact hand-delivered TPDO, certified N293A and dispatch records, subsequent enforcement orders, and the original March 2025 N260 email. New material will be added at the relevant point in this sequence.

Review the evidence and support the request for answers → Supply a documented response or correction →