Named questions / Costs enforcement
Jo Copp
Civil, Family and Tribunals Delivery Manager, Barnstaple and Exeter Courts, in the 2025–2026 court correspondence · Dated court correspondence and source record
Who changed the order—and on whose authority?
The allegation and challenge: Mr J alleges that Jo Copp manipulated enforcement orders without judicial authority, as part of deliberate pressure on Miss E. The challenge concerns who authorised the changed judge name and date, which version was operative, and how the documents reached enforcement.
The recorded response: Copp relayed Griffiths’s confirmation that he made the TPDO and that staff recorded the judge and date incorrectly. Copp also gave an account of the separate N293A certification and dispatch. Those explanations are recorded; the original instructions and document trail are the evidence required to test them.
The answer required: Produce the contemporaneous judicial instruction, each order version and amendment entry, the service record, certified N293A and dispatch messages. Identify who made each change and who authorised it.
Read the costs, TPDO and writ investigation → Trace the dated sources →
Questions addressed to Jo Copp
ENF-02 · Jo Copp / HMCTS — court administration and order integrity
Who authorised each TPDO version—and each change?
Identify the contemporaneous judicial instruction, original decision date and complete amendment history. Jo Copp: confirm your full professional name, case-era role and which steps you personally took. Who entered and changed the judge name and date? Reconcile the 7 October Mitchell copy, the 30 October Griffiths copy and the further correction described by the court.
The original and amended copies differ, while the court describes a single decision recorded incorrectly. Follow the record →
ENF-04 · Mark John Mayo / Seldons LLP / Jo Copp
Which order reached Miss E—and when?
Supply the service record identifying the complete TPDO, application and supporting material delivered to Miss E. Was any superseded version subsequently served or presented as operative? Identify the date, sender and proceedings.
Mr J reports later hand-delivery of a Mitchell-named copy. The delivered copy and its dated service evidence are still sought. Follow the record →
ENF-05 · Claire Louise Sandbrook / Jo Copp / Mark John Mayo
How did the writ reach the wrong issuing office?
Produce the certified N293A, the documents supplied to obtain the writ and their sender and receipt dates. Reconcile the reported 9 February postal dispatch, 16 February email and Dagnall’s finding that the writ should not have issued through Central Office. What checks were performed before enforcement was pursued, by whom, and which actions did Sandbrook undertake personally rather than through agents?
The sealed 10 March order identifies the registry error and records the enforcement officer’s acceptance of it. Follow the record →
ENF-14 · HMCTS — court administration and order integrity / Jo Copp
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.
The original 7 October copy names Mitchell; the amended copy bearing 30 October names Griffiths. Its printed date is not independent proof of when it was created or authorised. Follow the record →
ENF-15 · HMCTS — court administration and order integrity / Jo Copp / Richard Lloyd Griffiths
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.
An opposed correction application should, if practicable, be listed before the original judge. The question is what procedure actually occurred, not an assumption that every correction required consent. Follow the record →
ENF-16 · HMCTS — court administration and order integrity / Jo Copp / Seldons LLP / Mark John Mayo
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.
Version control matters where an order is used to restrict money or support later enforcement. The exact hand-delivered copy reported by Mr J remains to be matched to dated service evidence. Follow the record →
The complete question index
Questions across the case
6 existing questions addressed to Jo Copp. Each link opens its full wording, source and response position.
- ENF-02Who authorised each TPDO version—and each change?Costs enforcement & N260 · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- ENF-04Which order reached Miss E—and when?Costs enforcement & N260 · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- ENF-05How did the writ reach the wrong issuing office?Costs enforcement & N260 · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- ENF-14Changed after challenge. Show the original judicial record.Costs enforcement & N260 · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- ENF-15How was Miss E’s objection to the corrections determined?Costs enforcement & N260 · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- ENF-16Which version reached each recipient—and what was corrected afterwards?Costs enforcement & N260 · Proposed · not sent by this publication
Order integrity / The challenge and the changes
The name changed. The date changed. Show the authority.
The reviewed amendments followed the October challenges. The court’s explanation is recording error. The demand is for the original judicial instruction, every amendment and the decision on Miss E’s objections.
Compare the sequence and the slip-rule test → HMCTS oversight and questions →