HM Courts & Tribunals Service

Who authorised the changes—and who will examine them?

Miss E and Mr J seek independent scrutiny of the handling of their court documents. Their complaint concerns the changed judge name and date on the TPDO, the source decision, the service history and the consequences for Miss E. The allegation against Jo Copp (Civil, Family and Tribunals Delivery Manager, Barnstaple and Exeter Courts, in the 2025–2026 court correspondence) and the court’s recording-error explanation are examined together in the dated order-change record.

HMCTS is asked to identify the responsible senior manager, preserve the original records and explain what each official did and under whose authority. This is a request for institutional scrutiny, not an allegation that every recipient participated in the conduct.

Read the full oversight challenge → · Accountability record →

Complaint and investigation routes

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.

Administrative complaints concern staff handling; they do not replace a court application or appeal. The slip-rule section explains the distinction between recording the original decision correctly and substituting a different decision.

Six new questions for HMCTS

These are published questions, not a report that a complaint or Counter Fraud referral has been sent.

1. ENF-14 · Changed after challenge. Show the original judicial record.

   HMCTS and Jo Copp: when was each discrepancy discovered, by whom, and why did the changes follow the October challenges? Preserve and identify the original judicial instruction, case entry, version history and relevant correspondence. Who entered and authorised each changed name and date, and what did Copp personally instruct or implement? Explain why correcting the name introduced a different date.

2. ENF-15 · How was Miss E’s objection to the corrections determined?

   Identify the correction request or court-initiated process, its stated basis, the decision-maker and the outcome of Miss E’s objections. What contemporaneous record establishes who made the original decision and when? Explain how PD 40B paragraph 4.4 was considered where a correction application was opposed, and identify any hearing, reasons or record relied upon.

3. ENF-16 · Which version reached each recipient—and what was corrected afterwards?

   HMCTS and Jo Copp: supply the available issue, dispatch and service records identifying the complete version sent to Miss E, HSBC, the claimant and any enforcement agent, with dates and senders. Identify notices withdrawing or replacing earlier copies. Seldons LLP and Mark John Mayo (claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon): identify the versions you received, supplied or relied upon and their source.

4. ENF-17 · Who will investigate independently of the handling complained of?

   HMCTS: identify the senior manager responsible for Jo Copp’s case-era work. Will a manager uninvolved in these events review the original records and the family’s allegation of deliberate manipulation? What checks will establish whether any relevant connection to a party or conflict of interest existed, was declared and was appropriately managed?

5. ENF-18 · What prejudice did the discrepancies cause—and what remedy follows?

   HMCTS: assess the effect of inconsistent order copies and their handling on Miss E’s access to funds, ability to understand and challenge enforcement, time, expense and distress. Identify what can be remedied administratively, what requires a court application, and the reasons for your conclusions. Explain how her vulnerability was considered.

6. ENF-19 · Will the allegation of deliberate manipulation receive a recorded assessment?

   HMCTS: will you refer the specific allegation and supporting order versions to HMCTS Counter Fraud for assessment, or explain why that route is not appropriate? Identify the team responsible, the records preserved and the complaint or referral reference. Keep any administrative complaint review distinct from the judicial challenge to the orders.