The Fake Solicitor Letter, SRA Investigation & Full Evidence C.H.E.K Europe & C.H.E.K Institute

WHAT HAPPENED

A formal pre-action letter arrived on behalf of Chek Europe and the C.H.E.K Institute — threatening legal action and financial claims. But it carried no solicitor signature, no SRA number, no valid firm address — all mandatory legal requirements for official correspondence. The firm named on the letter had already ceased trading — yet it was sent as if fully active and authorised.

At the bottom of the letter, the term “interim payment” appeared — explicitly requesting a financial sum be paid in advance of any court judgment. When challenged directly that this constituted demanding money with menaces, the sender denied asking for any money at all — despite the wording clearly present in the document he had sent. When I sought further clarity — directly, professionally, and in writing — there was no reply. No explanation. No correction. Just silence.

THE SIX DEMANDS — EXACTLY AS STATED

In an effort to avoid the need for escalatory proceedings, Chek requires the following:

1. You cease direct communications concerning this dispute with individual Chek directors, staff, faculty, contractors and other associated individuals, save where communication is reasonably necessary for the proper pursuit of legal proceedings or a regulatory complaint.

2. You cease the repeated personal targeting of Gavin Jenkinngs, Paul Chek and other named individuals associated with Chek through online publications or direct communications forming part of the course of conduct identified above.

3. You remove and do not republish or repeat material forming part of that course of conduct which alleges financial dishonesty, concealment from HMRC, bribery, assault or other serious unlawful or professional misconduct against named individuals associated with Chek.

4. You cease publishing or republishing, as part of the continuing course of conduct, allegations that Chek has deliberately sabotaged your business or profile, deliberately suppressed or diverted inquiries, concealed offshore funds, offered bribes or silence payments, operated burner accounts, required and paid for slave labour, or otherwise engaged in deliberate dishonest or unlawful conduct.

5. You cease threatening or announcing further publication of material as a means of applying pressure in connection with the present dispute or any financial demand made against Chek.

6. You do not encourage, procure or arrange for any third party to engage in the conduct identified above on your behalf.

 

THE ABSURD “LEGAL ADVICE” — FROM THE SENDER OF THE LETTER

In light of the seriousness of the position and the fact that this letter places you on formal notice of potential proceedings, we recommend that you obtain independent legal advice both in relation to this letter and in relation to any claim which you consider you may have.

WHY THIS LETTER ITSELF IS EVIDENCE — NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT

This letter demands I stop making allegations — yet it never addresses whether those allegations are true. It demands I remove material — but never disputes the facts. It demands I stop communicating — yet threatens legal action that requires communication. It demands I stop “financial demands” — while itself containing an “interim payment” demand for money. And most remarkably — the sender of an unsigned, unregulated letter tells ME to get independent legal advice. This is not legal correspondence — it is a set of demands wrapped in threats, sent from a dissolved firm, and signed by no one.

REGULATORY CONFIRMATION

The letter was referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, who confirmed they are reviewing the matter. A formal complaint was also filed with the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding the pattern of contact, internal knowledge, and anonymous messaging linked to the C.H.E.K Institute and Chek Europe. These are not threats — they are open, active regulatory investigations.

ANONYMOUS ACCOUNTS & INTERNAL KNOWLEDGE

Simultaneously, messages arrived from accounts that have since been deleted — containing language, details, and references that no external third party could reasonably know about the C.H.E.K Institute, Chek Europe operations, and internal matters. In one instance, the sender referred to a previous comment I had removed — phrasing that confirmed they were directly involved in sending the original letter.

When challenged, Gavin Jenkins publicly distanced himself from the letter — stating it had no connection to Chek Europe or the C.H.E.K Institute. If that is true — who sent it? Why was it sent in his organisation’s name? And why was it sent from a dissolved firm? These remain unanswered questions.

FINANCIAL QUESTIONS & THE INTERIM PAYMENT DEMAND

Public records show declared assets exceeding £39,000 for Chek Europe — alongside a registered address, vehicles, and ongoing operations. Yet the same entity claims significant financial loss and damage.

Most notably, the letter explicitly requested an At the bottom of the letter, the term “interim payment” appeared — explicitly requesting a financial sum be paid in advance of any court judgment. When I spoke directly to the lawyer who had sent the letter and said, “You’re trying to demand money with menaces,” the lawyer denied asking for any money at all — despite the wording clearly present in the document he had sent. When I sought further clarity — directly, professionally, and in writing — there was no reply. No explanation. No correction. Just silence.

WHAT COMES NEXT

All evidence — including timestamps, screenshots, message logs, the original letter, the six demands, the interim payment clause, and the verbal denial of its own written terms — has been preserved and will be presented in full. The matter is proceeding toward formal proceedings on September 18th.

Any settlement proposal will be considered seriously and fairly. All offers must be made through proper, transparent channels and accompanied by full clarity on what is being offered and why.

CONCLUSION

This is not about drama — it is about accountability. Legal letters must follow the law. Regulated professionals must follow the rules. And no one should issue a financial demand then deny it exists when challenged — especially when acting in the name of an organisation like the C.H.E.K Institute or Chek Europe.

The facts speak for themselves. The regulators are involved. The evidence is complete — including the letter itself, the six demands, the interim payment demand, the contradictory advice to “get legal advice,” and the gap between what was written and what was verbally claimed. And the process will now take its course.