Miss E and Mr J’s challenge
A pensioner faced enforcement.
Who can account for the documents used against her?
Miss E and Mr J allege misleading accounts and concealment in the procurement of enforcement, and suspect fraud. They challenge Claire Louise Sandbrook, the High Court Enforcement Officer, Shergroup and Shergroup Legal to identify the people, records and decisions behind the certificate and writ.
The demand is concrete: identify the stamp, reconcile the accounts, produce the submission and show what happened after the stay was sent.
Claire Louise Sandbrook / The certificate behind the writ
The unnamed registry stamp is part of Sandbrook’s enforcement account.
This link is documentary, not incidental. Sandbrook’s 8 March statement describes Shergroup Legal preparing the N293A, obtaining Barnstaple certification and submitting the sealed papers to Central Office. It also says she had confirmed that Barnstaple had no associated High Court District Registry. The 10 March order records that the writ should have issued through Barnstaple District Registry and that the High Court Enforcement Officer accepted the Central Office error.
The supplied rough hearing transcript records Dagnall questioning the crown and absence of a named registry, then considering the seal probably genuine and inferring Barnstaple origin. Sandbrook’s reported explanation was an office error based on outdated information. Dagnall waived procedural errors under CPR 3.10 and transferred the matter; he did not make a finding of fraud.
Claire Louise Sandbrook: what original record authenticated this particular stamp before the papers were used to pursue Miss E’s possessions? Who checked it, and what did they check? HMCTS must identify who applied it. Sandbrook and the submitting firm must account for receiving, checking and relying on it.
The record does not identify Sandbrook as the person who physically applied the stamp. Her responsibility is being questioned through her stated enforcement role, witness evidence and account of the submitting legal practice.
Sources: statements of 6 and 8 March; N293A; 10 March order and supplied rough hearing transcript.
20 March: why the family went to Barnstaple to ask about the stamp → · SB-01: identify the authentication record →
“not a party to the preparation or filing”
Then why does the later statement say Shergroup Legal prepared it?
6 March / Complaint response
Unable to supply the certificate
The reply signed by Akansha Gautam, Team Leader, says: “As an enforcement agent, Shergroup is not a party to the preparation or filing of that document”. It states that it cannot supply the sealed N293A and directs Miss E to Barnstaple County Court.
8 March / Witness statement, paragraph 4
The legal practice prepared and submitted it
Sandbrook’s statement says Shergroup Legal prepared and submitted the N293A to Barnstaple on 30 January 2026. It describes the subsequent certification and Central Office submission.
The 6 March reply carries Shergroup Legal’s own footer. That practice is Sherwins Limited, SRA 510565; the enforcement business is a separate company. Those different capacities need explaining, not merging. SRA firm record · HCEOA officer directory.
Which entity was answering Miss E? Who held the form? Why was she not referred to the practice that says it prepared and submitted it? Identify the author, approver and document custodian, and produce the records behind the response.
The reply offered to request underlying orders and a schedule from the claimant. That offer did not supply the certificate or reconcile the roles described in the two accounts.
Sources: 6 March complaint response, section 2 and legal footer; 8 March statement, paragraphs 4–6.
The stay was sent.
The warning still said enforcement would continue.
- 2 March: Miss E’s service email identifies the sealed order and expressly says enforcement is stayed until further order. The copy names Sandbrook and several Shergroup addresses as recipients.
- 5 March: the correspondence from Saurabh Shirvalkar, Operations Executive, says the compliance notice has expired, the case has been allocated to enforcement agents and, without the requested evidence, “enforcement action will continue”.
- After the order was resent: Shirvalkar thanks Mr J for it and confirms enforcement has been placed on hold.
- 6 March: Shergroup acknowledges the earlier correspondence and distress, but says confirmed receipt and review followed Mr J’s resend on 5 March.
- 8 March: Sandbrook describes a delay in matching the email to the case and says no enforcement steps were taken.
A court protection should not depend on a pensioner repeatedly insisting that it exists. Miss E’s complaint challenges the pressure of the warning and the handling of the stay. The emails establish the warning and subsequent hold; the allocation and activity logs must establish what agents were actually instructed to do.
Show the receipt, case-matching, allocation and hold records. Explain what “no step was taken in the enforcement of the Writ of Control by my office” meant alongside the warning that the case had been allocated and action would continue.
Which witness statement remained before the court?
The 8 March statement is marked “Number: 1st”, although a statement dated 6 March already exists. Miss E’s 6 April letter asks how the accounts were corrected and what remained relied upon. Identify the filing and service record, any withdrawal or replacement, and each correction.
The key registry change is substantive. The later statement’s numbering is a separate record-management question; it cannot substitute for examining the actual words and their accuracy.
Read both statements (PDF) · SB-04: identify the operative account →
Miss E asked for records, not another assurance.
Her 26 March request, renewed with the nine-page letter of 6 April, asks for the identity of the Barnstaple contact, the time and note of the reported hearing-morning call, and the basis of the differing accounts. She also seeks the relevant court submissions and communications.
Did that call authenticate the existing stamp—or only discuss issuing a writ subsequently? Those are different questions. The original attendance note and court record should settle what was said.
Her separate 12 March request to Mary Kelly, followed up on 2 April, asks about certification, authority, the registry stamp and transmission. The follow-ups record her position that answers were still outstanding on those dates. The publication seeks the subsequent replies and records; it does not treat a historical no-response assertion as proof that no later reply exists.
Sources: 12 and 26 March requests; 2 April follow-up; 6 April letter and covering email.
SB-05: produce the call record → · SB-07: disclose the complete submission trail →
The certificate dispute does not erase the costs-document question.
Sandbrook was copied into Miss E’s March request for the original email and N260 that Mayo said had been sent on 17 March 2025. Mr J’s 10 March post-hearing request asked Cornwell for the same message, attachment and service evidence.
The costs orders, the N260 schedule, the N293A certificate and the writ are different documents in one enforcement chain. Producing one does not answer every question about the others. Seldons’ later reply asserted a precise sending time but declined to reproduce further documents unless required. That response is examined in the linked costs chapter.
Mayo and Cornwell: produce the email and its attachment. Sandbrook and Shergroup: after receiving notice of the dispute, what did you obtain, check and decide?
Follow the N260 request, service assertion and refusal → · Read the earlier TPDO hearing chapter →
Sources: Mr J’s 10 March request, Miss E’s forwarded March follow-up and Seldons’ 17 March reply.
Named accountability
Eight questions.
Answer with the original record.
These are proposed publication questions. Miss E’s historical requests and the recorded responses are identified above. Any substantive reply will be linked to the question it answers.
SB-01 / Claire Louise Sandbrook · Shergroup · Sherwins Limited / Shergroup Legal · HMCTS
Sandbrook: identify the unnamed registry stamp and the record behind your account.
The circular Part 3 stamp names no district. Your 8 March statement says Barnstaple had no associated District Registry; the 10 March order records that the writ should have issued there. Identify the exact certificate supplied to your office, who checked its stamp and what contemporaneous court entry or authorised specimen authenticated it. HMCTS: identify the officer and office that applied it. Distinguish each person’s actions from an assumption about the stamp’s origin.
SB-02 / Claire Louise Sandbrook · Shergroup · Sherwins Limited / Shergroup Legal
“not a party to the preparation or filing”—then who prepared and filed it?
Reconcile the 6 March complaint response with paragraph 4 of Sandbrook’s 8 March statement. Which legal entity was speaking in the response, who authored and approved it, and which entity prepared, submitted and retained the N293A? The response bears Shergroup Legal’s footer. Why was Miss E directed to the court instead of the preparing practice or record holder? Identify the documents and access checks supporting the claimed inability to supply a copy.
SB-03 / Claire Louise Sandbrook · Shergroup · Sherwins Limited / Shergroup Legal
The stay was sent. Why did the warning say enforcement would continue?
Produce the 2 March email receipt, mailbox-processing and case-matching records, together with the agent-allocation and hold logs. Explain the 5 March warning that the case had been allocated to enforcement agents and action would continue without further evidence. When were the order and attachments first available, opened and passed to the case handler? What did the statement that “no step was taken in the enforcement of the Writ of Control by my office” mean, and which records substantiate it?
SB-04 / Claire Louise Sandbrook · Shergroup · Sherwins Limited / Shergroup Legal
An 8 March statement marked first—but a 6 March statement already exists. Which account remained before the court?
Identify the filing and service history of the 6 and 8 March statements. Why does the 8 March statement say “Number: 1st” although a 6 March statement already exists? Was the earlier statement withdrawn, superseded or corrected, and when were the court and parties told? Identify every correction to the registry account and any passage still relied upon. Supply the relevant notices and the final statement record.
SB-05 / Claire Louise Sandbrook · Shergroup · Sherwins Limited / Shergroup Legal
Produce the Barnstaple call record—not another assurance.
Miss E’s 26 March request, renewed on 6 April, asks about the reported call to Barnstaple on the morning of the 10 March hearing. Identify the office, contact, time, contemporaneous note and advice received. Did anyone authenticate the existing 9 February stamp, or discuss a future issue of the writ? Provide the response to those requests and identify any points still unanswered.
SB-06 / Claire Louise Sandbrook · Shergroup · Sherwins Limited / Shergroup Legal · Mark John Mayo · Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
After notice of the missing N260, what did each of you check?
Sandbrook was copied into Miss E’s March request for the original 17 March 2025 email and N260 which Mayo said existed. Mayo, Cornwell and Seldons: produce that message and attachment. Sandbrook, Shergroup and Shergroup Legal: identify what you received, checked or requested after that notice, any consideration of Miss E’s vulnerability, and the recorded reasons for your next steps. Distinguish the existing costs orders from their disputed source schedule and claimed service.
SB-07 / Claire Louise Sandbrook · Shergroup · Sherwins Limited / Shergroup Legal
Show the complete submission and service trail.
Provide the N293A application, both completed pages, the Central Office submission and covering correspondence, and relevant subsequent representations about the writ, with filing and service records. Identify who acted for which entity, who checked the papers and what the court and Miss E respectively received. Answer the document requests in Miss E’s 6 April letter by reference to the actual file.
SB-08 / Sherwins Limited / Shergroup Legal · Solicitors Regulation Authority
Who will independently examine the legal firm’s account?
Sherwins Limited: who will review the preparation, custody, disclosure and complaint-response records independently of those involved? SRA: if referred with the original documents, will you assess which statements and actions are attributable to the regulated law firm and whether its response accurately described its involvement? Identify the evidence needed to test the allegations and the reasons for any decision.
Read the sources in order.
- The certificate, statements and court outcome: N293A, 9 February (PDF); Sandbrook statements, 6 and 8 March (PDF); 10 March order (PDF). The hearing account uses the supplied rough transcript, not an approved verbatim transcript.
- Shergroup complaint response, 6 March: section 2, preparation/filing and inability to supply the N293A; section 1, stay handling; signature of Akansha Gautam and Shergroup Legal footer. Original mailbox copy reviewed in full.
- 2–5 March stay chain: Miss E’s service-email copy and the correspondence headed “Enforcement Stayed by High Court Order”, including Shirvalkar’s warning and subsequent hold confirmation. Clock displays have differing contexts; this chronology relies on dated events, not an unverified minute-by-minute comparison.
- Miss E’s requests: 12 March certification questions to Mary Kelly; 26 March Barnstaple-call request; 2 April follow-up; nine-page 6 April letter and covering email. The emailed 6 April attachment matches the copy supplied for this review.
- Costs-document requests: 10 March post-hearing request and Miss E’s forwarded March follow-up, copied to Sandbrook. The later firm response and its reasons are part of the existing investigation.
Knowingly false verified evidence is a serious matter: CPR 32.14 addresses a false statement made without honest belief in its truth. These discrepancies call for the originals and explanations; a contradiction alone does not establish that state of mind.
Return to the writ and seal investigation → · Review the record and support the demand for answers →
The reporting record
What changed in this article.
- Writ record continued · Complaint reply and notice handling
Shergroup’s changing accounts: who prepared the certificate?
The 6 March complaint reply is compared with Sandbrook’s 8 March witness statement, alongside the unnamed-registry stamp challenge, the stay warning and the later hold. Eight named questions seek the preparation, certification, receipt and response records; Shergroup Enforcement and Shergroup Legal are distinguished.
Continue the writ record and compare the accounts
Substantive additions and corrections will be recorded here. The full case can be followed through Latest developments.
Stay with the story
Follow the investigation
as the record develops.
Follow what changes when another document, account or answer enters the record.
Follow Daux Scythe, our presenter, on LinkedIn for new reporting, evidence reviews and significant developments. The website remains the home of the articles, documents and response record.
This opens his profile; choose Follow on LinkedIn.