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 →
HMCTS / Barnstaple / Exeter
Warnings about a pensioner’s home life: trace the referral.
What was received, filed and placed before Timothy Edmund Walsh? The 10–11 May correspondence and trial-eve submission require an office-by-office account of processing, referral and any resulting directions.
Courts and court administration / Six direct questions
The power to enforce must come with a record that can be checked.
Miss E faces consequences in her bank account, her home and her ability to challenge enforcement. Which office holds the documents, who authorised the steps, and where is the audit trail? The demands below put a specific part of that record to each responsible office and HMCTS.
These questions concern administrative records. The linked questions to Paul Mitchell, Richard Lloyd Griffiths and Leslie Adrian Blohm separately address their judicial decisions.
Also answer CCTV-04: the vulnerability warnings, filing and judicial-referral record.
Court office / Institutional respondent
Barnstaple County Court — court office
HMCTS civil administration at Barnstaple Magistrates’, County and Family Court · North Walk, Barnstaple · court code 119
Barnstaple is connected to the N293A certification, seal enquiries and order copies. On 20 March 2026, ten days after Dagnall’s hearing, the family visited to check the seal. A helpful usher directed definitive verification to civil administration. This office is asked to identify the original sealing record and the costs-file custodian.
Official court-office source ↗
COURT-01 · Published question / Not yet sent
Who can authenticate this exact seal from the original records?
Barnstaple court office and HMCTS: produce the certification entry for the N293A bearing 9 February 2026, the authority relied upon, the responsible office and the dispatch record. Identify the registry, authorised officer and seal specimen. The family visited on 20 March after Dagnall’s 10 March hearing; its transcript records an usher’s provisional doubt and referral to civil administration. What checks followed the court’s enquiries? Was any verification request received following the visit, who dealt with it and what written answer was given?
Record to test: The seal does not name a registry within it. Dagnall’s probably-genuine view and the usher’s provisional reaction must be tested against the original certification record; neither supplies that record. Read the source context →
COURT-04 · Published question / Not yet sent
What supporting costs material is actually held on the court file?
Barnstaple court office and HMCTS: identify the court file and office holding the material used for Paul Mitchell’s 21 March 2025 assessment. What N260, calculations and written submissions were received by the 17 March deadline, from whom and when? Locate the originals and receipt entries. If a record cannot be found, identify the searches, retention position and judicial record relied upon. What decision governs provision of a copy to Miss E?
Record to test: Seldons asserts sending at 15:37 on 17 March 2025. The court’s receiving record is distinct from the solicitor’s service claim and the later decision refusing disclosure. Read the source context →
COURT-05 · Published question / Not yet sent
Which office handled the changed copies—and who supervised it?
Barnstaple and Exeter court administration and HMCTS: identify each office’s role and the manager responsible for Jo Copp’s case-era work. Preserve the original judicial instruction, amendment and dispatch history. Who authorised the changed judge name and date, and who checked that recipients held the operative copy? Appoint an uninvolved reviewer to test the recording-error explanation against those records and address the prejudice Miss E reports.
Record to test: The court has acknowledged name and date errors. The question is whether the original instruction, authorisations and distribution record substantiate the explanation and identify responsibility. Read the source context →
Court office / Institutional respondent
King’s Bench Division — Central Office, London
High Court of Justice · administrative filing and issue office · Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London
Shergroup’s account describes sending the papers to Central Office on 17 February 2026; the Form 53 writ is dated 20 February. The receiving office’s own record is needed to test the route taken.
Official court-office source ↗
COURT-02 · Published question / Not yet sent
What did Central Office receive, check and issue?
King’s Bench Central Office: identify the submission received in February 2026, its sender, attachments and source certification. Produce the issue entry and recorded checks for the Form 53 writ dated 20 February. How was the District Registry certification handled, and what record explains the route later addressed by Dagnall under CPR 3.10?
Record to test: The issuing office’s own record can test the enforcement company’s account and distinguish the certificate from the writ. Read the source context →
Court office / Institutional respondent
Bristol Civil and Family Justice Centre — court office
HMCTS High Court and civil administration · Bristol District Registry · 2 Redcliff Street, Bristol
The 10 March order transferred the matter to Bristol. The later appeal strand separately challenges the handling of references, directions, transfer requests and N260 disclosure. Each route needs its own traceable file history.
Official court-office source ↗
COURT-03 · Published question / Not yet sent
Where is the Bristol record of the transfer and subsequent directions?
Bristol court office: when was the 10 March 2026 transfer received and entered, under which reference, and with which documents? Identify subsequent directions affecting enforcement, their dates and the notices sent to Miss E and the other parties. Provide the record establishing the operative position after the temporary stay, rather than leaving her to infer it.
Record to test: The March order records a stay ending on 13 April 2026 at 16:30. It cannot establish the current enforcement position without later directions. Read the source context →
COURT-06 · Published question / Not yet sent
Which record explains the appeal references, directions and disclosure refusal?
Bristol court office and HMCTS: provide the administrative history connecting CA-2026-002125, KA-2026-BRS-000028 and the related KB-2026-BRS-000052 proceedings. Identify the receipt and referral of Miss E’s objections, the orders operative in each file, and any correction or notice explaining the September document’s retained August deadline. Where are the recorded reasons or hearing record for the N260 refusal and transfer decision, and how may Miss E obtain them?
Record to test: Miss E maintains her appeal while disputing the allocation and process. Office staff are asked for the procedural record; the merits of judicial decisions remain questions for the court and appeal process. Read the source context →
Also answer CCTV-04: the vulnerability warnings, filing and judicial-referral record.
Court office / Institutional respondent
Exeter Law Courts — civil court administration
HMCTS court administration · Southernhay Gardens, Exeter · court code 198 · Barnstaple–Exeter management connection identified in the correspondence
Jo Copp’s case-era correspondence identifies a Civil, Family and Tribunals Delivery Manager role covering Barnstaple and Exeter Courts. HMCTS is asked to identify the management chain and each office’s actual part in the disputed handling.
Official court-office source ↗
COURT-05 · Published question / Not yet sent
Which office handled the changed copies—and who supervised it?
Barnstaple and Exeter court administration and HMCTS: identify each office’s role and the manager responsible for Jo Copp’s case-era work. Preserve the original judicial instruction, amendment and dispatch history. Who authorised the changed judge name and date, and who checked that recipients held the operative copy? Appoint an uninvolved reviewer to test the recording-error explanation against those records and address the prejudice Miss E reports.
Record to test: The court has acknowledged name and date errors. The question is whether the original instruction, authorisations and distribution record substantiate the explanation and identify responsibility. Read the source context →
The answer required: identify the question number, the record checked, the person responsible and the document supporting the response. If another office holds it, identify that office and the referral made.
Complaint and investigation routes
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
The six existing HMCTS oversight questions
These are published questions, not a report that a complaint or Counter Fraud referral has been sent.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.