8 March → 10 March 2026
The two accounts do not agree. Explain why.
Sandbrook’s written position
“I have confirmed that Barnstaple County Court does not have an associated District Registry of the High Court.”
8 March statement, paragraph 7. Paragraph 9 describes Central Office as the only appropriate issuing body.
The subsequent court record
Dagnall’s 10 March order attributes the District Registry seal to Barnstaple. It records the enforcement officer’s acceptance that the writ should not have issued out of Central Office.
What did Sandbrook check before making her written statement—and what changed?
Read both Sandbrook statements (PDF) · Read the complete court order (PDF)
10 March 2026 / The hearing account
A written assurance.
Then an admission of error.
The following account draws on the family-supplied rough transcript, reviewed 25 September 2026; it is not an approved court transcript.
8 March: “I have confirmed”
Claire Louise Sandbrook’s signed statement says she had confirmed that Barnstaple had no associated High Court District Registry. It presents Central Office as the appropriate issuing body. Inspect the statement above →
10 March: outdated information
The rough transcript records Sandbrook accepting that the writ should not have issued from Central Office, apologising for her office’s error and explaining that it had used outdated information. She said she had researched the matter the previous day.
What had actually been checked before the written assurance was signed?
The Barnstaple call: confirm exactly what was said.
Sandbrook reported that her office had spoken to Barnstaple District Registry that morning and being told it could issue the writ if directed after the hearing. That account does not identify anyone authenticating the existing 9 February stamp. Sandbrook and Shergroup: produce the call note or email. Was the old seal authenticated, or was future issue discussed?
Dagnall questioned the seal. What did his enquiries establish?
The transcript records his concern that the seal did not name its registry, his description of that as highly unfortunate and undesirable, and a query about the crown’s different design. He referred to making enquiries. He nevertheless considered the seal probably genuine and inferred Barnstaple involvement from the circumstances; he did not find forgery.
HMCTS: identify the sealing office, the authorised officer, the original case entry and the outcome of those enquiries. The request is for the record behind the conclusion.
Inspect the seal → Sandbrook and Shergroup: answer WRIT-01 → HMCTS: answer WRIT-10 →
Claire Louise Sandbrook / Shergroup / Treatment of a pensioner
Shergroup promises protection.
What protection did Miss E receive?
Before pursuing Miss E’s possessions, what did you verify—and who took responsibility for her welfare?
Mr J regards the pursuit of his mother’s possessions while the March costs documentation remains disputed and unproduced to her as morally unacceptable. His challenge to Claire Louise Sandbrook and Shergroup / Shergroup Legal is specific: show the checks, the vulnerability assessment and the reasons behind the decisions.
Shergroup identifies Sandbrook as its CEO and the authorised High Court Enforcement Officer supporting Call The Bailiffs. Her public profile describes oversight of lawful enforcement and protection of vulnerable people. Read Shergroup’s account of her role and television work.
The public commitment
Shergroup’s current website promises support for vulnerable people, extra time to obtain advice, engagement with authorised representatives and consideration of alternative enforcement approaches.
The case-specific demand
Where is the record showing how those protections were applied to Miss E? Identify what was known about her circumstances and her challenge to the costs documents. Show who assessed it, what they decided and why.
The Ministry of Justice’s national standards, paragraphs 70–77, provide a non-binding benchmark for protecting vulnerable people, notifying creditors of concerns and exercising discretion. Shergroup should identify the policy it actually applied in February–March 2026 and demonstrate the safeguards in its case file.
The rough transcript places the missing-N260 challenge in the hearing in which Sandbrook participated. It also records Mr J disputing ownership of goods and Dagnall noting that Sandbrook had heard him. What checks followed those warnings, who reviewed them and what safeguards were put in place? The costs orders exist; the dispute concerns the schedule supporting the March 2025 award and its service. Follow the hearing exchange into the later refusal →
A public promise of care must be tested against the treatment of the person facing enforcement. Show the decisions. Explain the checks. Answer Miss E.
Four direct questions: checks, vulnerability, decisions and independent review →
The documents / Read them yourself
The certificate. The later writ. The chain between them.
On 10 March 2026 at 11:42 in the quoted email header, Dagnall wrote: “I attach a further copy of the N293A.” That two-page attachment is now recovered. Part 1 names Barnstaple and records £5,498.80 against a 21 March 2025 judgment date. Part 2 carries 9 February 2026 certification. Part 3 carries a District Registry seal without a town within the seal.
Download both N293A pages (PDF)
- 30 January: Shergroup Legal’s N293A request, according to Sandbrook.
- 9 February: certification and District Registry sealing visible on the recovered form.
- 17 February: submission to Central Office, according to Sandbrook.
- 20 February: Central Office writ, WC000101/2026.
- 10 March: Dagnall sends the completed N293A and records the wrong-office issue.
Why was Central Office asked to seal it after the District Registry stamp had been applied? The covering correspondence and exact attachments should answer that question.
The mark of authority
A District Registry stamp with no district named inside it.
Barnstaple is named elsewhere on the form, but not within this circular seal. The crown design differs from other seals in the supplied record. HMCTS should identify the issuing office, authenticate the stamp and disclose the case entry recording its use. The image alone cannot establish its provenance.
The supplied rough transcript records Dagnall questioning the registry name and crown, and Sandbrook answering with an explanation of her office’s error. It does not reproduce the original stamping record. Dagnall considered the seal probably genuine and inferred Barnstaple involvement. Read the exchange and its limits above. Mr J separately reports a later conversation with a Barnstaple usher questioning the seal’s origin; the promised recording has not yet been supplied.
The money / Another documentary contrast
Three awards. One date. Two interest formulations.
The £5,498.80 total combines £1,750 on 21 March, £2,112 on 29 October and £1,636.80 on 15 December 2025. The additions reconcile. The question is why the N293A and writ associate the full total with the earliest date.
N293A, Part 3
“at 8% per annum from the date of transfer”
Form 53
“Judgment interest(2) @8% from 21/03/2025”
The 23 February notice demanded £410.19 interest. Which sums accrued interest, from which dates, and on what legal basis? Publish the worksheet. A single aggregate figure does not explain the calculation.
The 30 January request also certifies that, to the applicant’s knowledge, no application or other procedure was pending. The question is what was checked against the actual proceedings and the applicable restrictions—not simply whether an appeal existed.
The completed copy / Now recovered
Miss E asked for the authority. Show what was sent to her.
Miss E repeatedly requested the completed certificate before the hearing. Copp later said the completed form had been posted to Shergroup on 9 February and emailed to Shergroup on 16 February; she subsequently said no proof of first-class posting was available. That onward dispatch is distinct from Miss E’s requests for her own completed copy. Miss E describes earlier material containing an incomplete form. Her 12 March correspondence records that Dagnall supplied the completed copy during the hearing, before Copp’s later message on 10 March.
The completed certificate is no longer missing from this investigation. The transmission history still needs to be demonstrated. The requested evidence is the exact 16 February email and attachment, the posted version and the court’s disclosure log—not another general assurance that documents were sent.
Sandbrook’s statements: what was actually said.
On 6 March, Sandbrook confirmed that an N293A in Part 3 had been issued by Barnstaple County Court. Her longer 8 March statement described Shergroup Legal’s preparation, Barnstaple sealing, Central Office submission and one consolidated writ. It also acknowledged that a stay email received on 2 March was not matched to the matter until 5 March; she stated that no enforcement step occurred during that interval. The case logs should substantiate that account.
Read the exact pages below. The questions distinguish the steps in that account and focus on its conflict with the court’s later registry finding.
The court waived the procedural errors. That is not the end of the questions.
Dagnall’s 10 March order waived the identified procedural errors under CPR 3.10, transferred the writ and application to Bristol, reserved costs and continued the stay until 13 April 2026 at 16:30. That is the historical order, not a statement of the present stay position. It contains no finding of fraud.
The order refers to certification on 9 February 2025; the recovered N293A is stamped 9 February 2026. It also records an “N460” request where the family’s costs-document concern is the N260. The original pages retain both entries. Have those references been corrected, and what record supports the court’s registry conclusion and exercise of its remedial power?
CPR 83.9 and 83.19 address the appropriate issuing office and transfer procedure. CPR 40.14A(6) permits a court officer to sign the certificate. CPR 3.10 provides a power to remedy procedural error. The challenge is therefore to the authentic record, the representations and the reasons for the handling—not the absence of a judge’s signature alone.
The same hearing / The same outstanding costs record
Mayo offered to arrange resending.
Then Seldons refused to reproduce it.
The rough 10 March transcript records Mark John Mayo saying his solicitors had sent the N260, giving 17 March as his belief about the date, and offering to arrange resending. Miss E challenged receipt and asked for it again. Dagnall suggested sending it; he expressly did not order disclosure.
- 10 March 2026 — the offer at the hearing. Mayo attributes sending to his solicitors and offers to arrange another copy. The missing-document challenge is raised during the hearing in which Claire Louise Sandbrook participates.
- 10–11 March — Mr J follows up. The post-hearing email asks Cornwell and Seldons for the schedule and proof of transmission, with Mayo copied.
- 17 March — a precise assertion, but no copy. Seldons says the N260 was sent on 17 March 2025 at 15:37, disputes that Mayo promised to arrange resending and declines to reproduce the document. Its letter also states intended enforcement after the stay unless the court orders otherwise.
- 18 March — the request is renewed. Mr J again asks for the N260 and evidence of service. The original email and schedule remain unlocated in this review; Miss E says they remain unprovided.
- 19 August — disclosure is refused by order. The order recording Leslie Adrian Blohm’s hearing refuses the N260 disclosure application. Miss E challenges that refusal in her protective appeal.
If the exact sending time can be asserted, why can the original message and attachment not be shown? The rough transcript’s resending exchange must be reconciled with the firm’s later account—not left as competing assertions.
Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP · SRA 664668: identify the file checked, the person who authorised the refusal and the reason. Mark John Mayo: what followed your offer? Sandbrook and Shergroup: what checks or review followed the costs-document challenge, and when did you receive any later refusal?
Sandbrook was confronted with a dispute about the supporting schedule in the hearing; that is not proof she knew no schedule existed. Mr J regards pursuing a vulnerable pensioner’s possessions while this evidence remains withheld as morally unacceptable. The answer required is practical: show what you checked and how you protected Miss E.
Read the post-hearing requests and response → The refusal and SRA questions → Miss E’s earlier published letters → Blohm’s refusal and the appeal →
Assessment chronology: costs were deferred on 10 March 2025, written submissions were due by 4pm on 17 March, and £1,750 was ordered on 21 March. Read the orders and calculation question →
The missing March N260 remains part of the same story.
The writ consolidated three costs orders, including the £1,750 March liability. The family’s demand for that assessment’s N260 and original service email continues. Seldons’ 4 March letter states that the firm was not instructed to obtain the writ and had a limited role preparing and filing Mayo’s witness statement. Its later costs-document response is examined in the connected enforcement article.
The demand is for a traceable chain: assessment, certification, issue, calculation and enforcement. Each person should answer for the part they actually performed or authorised.
Fourteen direct questions / Named responsibilities
Produce the chain of authority.
These questions are published on 25 September 2026 and have not yet been sent by The Unanswered Record.
WRIT-01 · Claire Louise Sandbrook / Shergroup / Shergroup Legal
You wrote “I have confirmed”. What had you actually checked?
Your 8 March statement said you had confirmed that Barnstaple had no associated High Court District Registry. The supplied rough transcript of 10 March records you accepting your office’s error and explaining that it had used outdated information. Identify the source, its date, who checked it and what your research the day before the hearing established. Produce the note of the hearing-morning Barnstaple contact: did anyone authenticate the existing 9 February seal, or only discuss issuing a writ subsequently?
WRIT-02 · Claire Louise Sandbrook / Shergroup / Shergroup Legal
Show the complete Central Office submission.
Produce the 17 February submission, covering email and every attachment. Did it include both completed N293A pages and the 9 February District Registry seal? Why was Central Office sealing sought, and what explanation accompanied that request?
WRIT-03 · Jo Copp / HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Who certified and sealed this document?
Identify who applied the Part 2 certification and Part 3 seal on 9 February, at which office and under what authority. Identify the signature appearing to read “M Kelly”. Produce the case entries, approved seal specimen, transfer record and record of notice to Miss E. The rough hearing transcript records concerns about the unnamed registry and crown: what contemporaneous record authenticates this particular stamp?
WRIT-04 · Jo Copp / HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Why did Miss E have to keep asking for the completed copy?
Produce the precise versions reportedly posted to Shergroup on 9 February and emailed to Shergroup on 16 February, with available dispatch records. Separately identify what completed copy was supplied to Miss E, and when. Address Miss E’s account that her earlier material contained an incomplete N293A, and explain the response to her repeated requests before the hearing.
WRIT-05 · Mark John Mayo / Shergroup / Shergroup Legal
Who checked the applicant’s certification?
Who completed and approved the 30 January statement that, to the applicant’s knowledge, no application or other procedure was pending? What appeal and application information was supplied, checked and disclosed before the request and before certification on 9 February?
WRIT-06 · Mark John Mayo / Claire Louise Sandbrook / Shergroup / Shergroup Legal
Why do three awards appear under one judgment date?
Why do Part 1 and Form 53 associate the entire £5,498.80 with 21 March 2025 when the total includes awards of 29 October and 15 December? Produce the instructions and calculation identifying each order, its date and the unpaid amount.
WRIT-07 · Claire Louise Sandbrook / Shergroup / Shergroup Legal
Explain the changed interest start date.
Reconcile Part 3’s “from the date of transfer” with Form 53’s “from 21/03/2025”. Produce the legal basis and worksheet for the £410.19 interest demanded on 23 February, showing the principal and start date used for each award.
WRIT-08 · Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell / Seldons LLP / Mark John Mayo
Mayo offered to arrange resending. Where is the N260?
The rough 10 March transcript records Mayo attributing service to his solicitors and offering to arrange resending. Produce the original March 2025 N260, its filing/service email, recipients and attachment, and the record of any resending after that hearing. Reconcile that exchange with Seldons’ 17 March 2026 refusal to reproduce it and its dispute about a promise to resend. Identify who made the decision and the reason. Separately identify which documents were passed to the enforcement service; Seldons says it was not instructed to obtain the writ.
WRIT-09 · Claire Louise Sandbrook / Shergroup / Shergroup Legal
What happened between receipt of the stay and the recorded hold?
Explain the failure to match the stay email received on 2 March until 5 March. Produce contemporaneous logs supporting your statement that no enforcement step occurred during that interval, and identify the corrective action taken.
WRIT-10 · HM Courts & Tribunals Service
What did the enquiries into the seal establish?
The rough transcript records Dagnall questioning the unnamed registry and crown, referring to enquiries, then considering the seal probably genuine and inferring Barnstaple origin. What enquiries were completed and what records confirmed the provenance? Provide the approved hearing record, relevant case entries and outcome of those enquiries. Identify any correction of the order’s “9 February 2025” date and “N460” reference.
WRIT-11 · Claire Louise Sandbrook / Shergroup / Shergroup Legal
The costs-document challenge was raised in your hearing. What did you do?
The rough 10 March transcript records the missing-N260 challenge during the hearing in which Sandbrook participated. When did you first become aware of Miss E’s disputed receipt and what action followed? Identify the exact documents you obtained, who checked them and what you requested from the claimant or his representatives. Did you inspect the disputed schedule and original service email? If not, explain your basis for treating the record as sufficient for your enforcement role. When, if ever, did you receive Seldons’ later refusal, and what review followed?
WRIT-12 · Claire Louise Sandbrook / Shergroup / Shergroup Legal
Where is Miss E’s vulnerability assessment?
Produce to Miss E the dated assessment of her circumstances, who conducted it and what safeguards followed. What notice of vulnerability did you receive, how did you respond to her authorised representative, and what additional time or support was offered? Supply a privacy-safe account for publication. Identify the assessment and decisions, not merely your general policy.
WRIT-13 · Claire Louise Sandbrook / Shergroup / Shergroup Legal
Who decided enforcement should proceed—and on what grounds?
Identify the decision-maker and dated reasons at each relevant stage, including after the costs-document challenge, receipt of the stay and discovery of the issuing-office problem. What consideration was given to pausing action, seeking court clarification or referring concerns to the creditor? Distinguish action before, during and after any stay; provide the case logs supporting your account.
WRIT-14 · Claire Louise Sandbrook / Shergroup / Shergroup Legal
Do your public promises match your case file?
Shergroup currently promises additional time, engagement with authorised representatives and consideration of alternative enforcement approaches for vulnerable people. Which policy applied to Miss E in February–March 2026, and how was it implemented? Will an uninvolved senior reviewer examine the full file, preserve relevant communications and any visit recordings, and provide a reasoned response addressing each disputed decision?
The source pages
Read the statements and the order in full.
Sandbrook: 6 and 8 March statements, four pages (PDF) · Dagnall: 10 March order, two pages (PDF)
Open all four Sandbrook statement pages
Open both pages of Dagnall’s 10 March order
Source trail: family-supplied rough hearing transcript (10 March 2026, reviewed 25 September; not court-approved); Dagnall’s 10 March email and its two-page N293A attachment; EE1–19 bundle, page 3 (Form 53); EE40–43 bundle, pages 16–19 (Sandbrook); sealed EN30/2026 order. Dates, seals and disputed wording are preserved.
Follow the money. Follow the record.
Read the costs and enforcement investigation → Follow the allegation and legal questions → Return to the case chronology →
The reporting record
What changed in this article.
- Hearing account reviewed · Connected costs record
Mayo offered to arrange resending. Where is the N260?
The supplied rough transcript connects Sandbrook’s admitted issuing-office error and Dagnall’s seal questions with Mayo’s resending offer, Seldons’ later refusal and the disclosure appeal. The live chronology now distinguishes deferred costs from the later award; the hearing exchange is not described as proven sworn testimony.
Follow the hearing, refusal and named questions - Corporate accountability
Shergroup promises protection. What protection did Miss E receive?
Four new questions put Claire Louise Sandbrook and Shergroup’s public commitments beside the demand for costs-document checks, a vulnerability assessment and reasons for enforcement decisions.
Read the public-promises challenge - Recovered evidence
The writ seal and the conflicting registry accounts
The completed N293A, later writ, Sandbrook statements and Dagnall order are now visible. Named questions address certification, disclosure, interest and the family’s allegation of fraudulent procurement.
Inspect the source pages
Substantive additions and corrections will be recorded here. The full case can be followed through Latest developments.
The rough hearing transcript now supplies the oral account. The next records sought are the approved transcript, the original submission and sealing logs, and the March N260 with its service message.
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.