Law firm / Preparation and disclosure
Sherwins Limited
Jump to all 8 questions addressed to this recipient →
Trading as Shergroup Legal
The legal practice identified in the writ record.
The SRA register identifies Shergroup Legal as the trading name of Sherwins Limited, with its head office at 20 St. Andrew Street, Holborn, London EC4A 3AG. Companies House identifies company 06668957.
This legal practice is distinct from Shergroup Limited, the enforcement company. The questions below concern the preparation and submission attributed to Shergroup Legal and the reply bearing its footer.
Who held the certificate—and why was Miss E sent elsewhere?
Miss E and Mr J allege misleading accounts and concealment in the enforcement chain. Sandbrook’s 8 March statement says Shergroup Legal prepared and submitted the N293A. The 6 March complaint response says Shergroup, as enforcement agent, was not involved in its preparation or filing and could not supply it. The response uses the legal practice’s footer.
Identify the entity speaking, its author and approver, the document custodian and the record behind the response. Separate corporate identities require an explanation of responsibility; they are not interchangeable.
Compare the two accounts → · The unnamed stamp and submitting firm →
Questions for Sherwins Limited / Shergroup Legal
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.
The complete question index
Questions across the case
8 existing questions addressed to Sherwins Limited — Shergroup Legal. Each link opens its full wording, source and response position.
- SB-01Sandbrook: identify the unnamed registry stamp and the record behind your account.Shergroup accounts & stay handling · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- SB-02“not a party to the preparation or filing”—then who prepared and filed it?Shergroup accounts & stay handling · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- SB-03The stay was sent. Why did the warning say enforcement would continue?Shergroup accounts & stay handling · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- SB-04An 8 March statement marked first—but a 6 March statement already exists. Which account remained before the court?Shergroup accounts & stay handling · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- SB-05Produce the Barnstaple call record—not another assurance.Shergroup accounts & stay handling · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- SB-06After notice of the missing N260, what did each of you check?Shergroup accounts & stay handling · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- SB-07Show the complete submission and service trail.Shergroup accounts & stay handling · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- SB-08Who will independently examine the legal firm’s account?Shergroup accounts & stay handling · Proposed · not sent by this publication