Enforcement organisation / Named responsibilities
Shergroup
Shergroup Legal
Jump to all 10 questions addressed to this recipient →
The services identified in Sandbrook’s statements as preparing the N293A and submitting it to Central Office.
Claire Louise Sandbrook and Shergroup / Public promises under scrutiny
Before pursuing a pensioner’s possessions, what did you verify?
Mr J challenges the ethics of the enforcement against Miss E. Sandbrook and Shergroup are asked for the costs-document checks, vulnerability assessment, safeguards and recorded reasons—not a general assurance that procedures were followed.
Public promises versus Miss E’s treatment → Claire Louise Sandbrook’s questions → Shergroup’s questions →
Explain the submission. Show the checks.
Shergroup’s own website identifies Claire Sandbrook as its CEO and the authorised High Court Enforcement Officer supporting Call The Bailiffs. The public role is directly relevant to the responsibility for supervision. Official role and television profile →
Claire Louise Sandbrook’s 8 March statement identifies Shergroup Legal as preparing the request on 30 January, obtaining Barnstaple sealing on 9 February and submitting it to Central Office on 17 February. The questions concern the exact instructions, records checked, interest calculation and handling of the stay.
Claire Louise Sandbrook — Authorised High Court Enforcement Officer, Shergroup; identified in the 10 March 2026 order · Shergroup authorised-officer identification ↗
Claire Louise Sandbrook: professional role and personal questions → The documents and registry contradiction →
The organisation’s responsibility should be established from the original instructions and the legal entity responsible for each service.
The complete question index
Questions across the case
10 existing questions addressed to Shergroup / Shergroup Legal. Each link opens its full wording, source and response position.
- WRIT-01You wrote “I have confirmed”. What had you actually checked?Writ provenance & registry · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- WRIT-02Show the complete Central Office submission.Writ provenance & registry · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- WRIT-05Who checked the applicant’s certification?Writ provenance & registry · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- WRIT-06Why do three awards appear under one judgment date?Writ provenance & registry · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- WRIT-07Explain the changed interest start date.Writ provenance & registry · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- WRIT-09What happened between receipt of the stay and the recorded hold?Writ provenance & registry · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- WRIT-11The costs-document challenge was raised in your hearing. What did you do?Writ provenance & registry · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- WRIT-12Where is Miss E’s vulnerability assessment?Writ provenance & registry · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- WRIT-13Who decided enforcement should proceed—and on what grounds?Writ provenance & registry · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- WRIT-14Do your public promises match your case file?Writ provenance & registry · Proposed · not sent by this publication
10 March hearing → 17 March refusal → disclosure appeal
The N260 was said to be available. Where is it?
The rough hearing transcript records Mayo offering to arrange resending through his solicitors, while Sandbrook participated in the hearing where non-receipt was challenged. Seldons’ later letter declined to reproduce it. Follow the offer, the refusal and the questions about what each person checked.
Follow the hearing-to-refusal record → Read Sandbrook’s changed registry account →