Private Investigator Birmingham

Private Investigator Case Studies

Private Investigators

People often question what private investigators do on a day to day basis. There are many aspects to being a private investigator, and we all specialise in our desired fields. Sentry Investigations Ltd specialise in surveillance operations and other types of investigation. We have put together a few examples of operations that we have conducted over the years for visitors to get an idea of what we actually do day in, day out. 

January 2021

Trace Search Enquiry

TASK - To locate and provide address/contact details of a clients two sons where contact had been broken three years prior following a family dispute. To seek post consent from the two sons to allow distribution of address/contact details to the client.

METHOD - Conduct trace search enquiries via online open-source registers to obtain current addresses and further contact details for both sons. Contact both sons directly and seek consent to distribute information to their father.


OUTCOME - Both sons current addresses and other contact information was sourced with data as recent as 3 weeks old. Following a discussion and an agreement between both sons, they gave consent for Sentry Investigations to distribute contact details to the client. The client reconnected with both sons.

Private Investigator Birmingham Case Studies
Private Detective Birmingham

December 2020

Industrial Espionage

TASK - To establish and evidence a client's former contractor's new place of work. The contractor in question is suspected to employed with a direct competitor of the clients. previous investigations prove he was sharing confidential product designs with the new employer, putting him in breach of contract.


METHOD - Conduct a period of surveillance to evidence who the previous contractor is now working for. The client specifically requested that no video footage is to be obtained of the previous contractor's home or anything unrelated to the objective.


OUTCOME - The previous contractor was observed (not filmed) exiting his home address at approximately 08:15hrs. He departed in his vehicle and was followed approximately 20 miles to a small supermarket. He went inside and purchased a sandwich, packet of crisps and a drink. The previous contractor then got back into his vehicle and drove a further 1 mile to a large industrial estate which is where the cameras were switched on. He pulled into the car park of the business the client suspected he was working and exited his vehicle with his lunch and a laptop bag. He then walked across the car park and entered the main front door with the company logo clearly displayed next to the door. The previous contractor was found to be in breach of contract. With evidence of confidential design sharing and proof of the previous contractor's new place or work, the client filed a court injunction against him.  

June 2020

Fraudulent Personal Injury Claim

TASK - To establish whether a male painter and decorator was back at work and at what level following a vehicle collision and claiming through the insured driver's policy that he was unable to work consecutive days for no more than 3 to 4 hours per day due to chronic pain in his arms and back. Noted - Prior observations had been conducted on the subject without success due to loss of contact during mobile follow procedures.

METHOD - To conduct three consecutive days of mobile surveillance on the subject to evidence his daily routines. The surveillance team consisted of two operatives to reduce the possibility of losing site of the subject.

OUTCOME - On all three days of surveillance the subject was observed unloading and loading painting and decorating materials from the back of his pickup truck and into a total of X3 different properties. Time logged evidence proved the subject was working an average of 10-hour days. He displayed no signs of physical incapability and appeared fit for work. The subjects claim was proved fraudulent.  

Covert Surveillance Birmingham
Working for Competitors

February 2019


TASK - To establish evidence of moonlighting (working for competitors) of a solicitor (specialising in PPI claims) who was at the time suspended without pay by his employer (law firm) pending an investigation for suspected theft of a large sum of money.

METHOD - To conduct three days of surveillance to establish whether the subject is working for competitors.

OUTCOME - During the course of the 3 days, the subject was followed to an office complex and was found to be running his own law firm specialising in PPI claims which was in direct competition of his employer.

February 2018


TASK - To establish evidence of a male suspected of infidelity who has previously been known for committing such acts. The male was under surveillance when previously suspected and the client did disclose the video evidence to him upon completion of the task.


METHOD - To conduct surveillance on an evening when the subject is due to have a night out with a friend with the knowledge of the subject being surveillance aware.


OUTCOME - The subject did in fact go on a night out with a friend however, two females met with the subject and his friend, which led to a bar crawl across the town and all four parties becoming extremely intoxicated. Throughout the evening, the subject was observed passionately kissing one of the females on a number of occasions before checking into a local hotel with her after last orders. The subject proved infidelity (again

Infidelity Investigations
Private Investigator Birmingham

June 2017

Fraudulent Personal Injury Claim

TASK - To establish independent evidence of the claimants physical capabilities, level of mobility functioning, social interaction and general day-to-day activities in relation to an insurance claim where the subject was in fact involved in a road traffic collision. She now states she is wheelchair bound, rarely ventures out of her property and feels anxious in busy environments, which contradicts medical statements provided by the GP.

METHOD - To conduct three days of surveillance on the subject from her home address to prove validity of the claim.

OUTCOME - All three days of surveillance found the claimant to walk without aid away from the home address and into the local town where she met with a friend on 2 occasions at a coffee shop, and did some clothes shopping on her own on the third occasion. The subjects claim was void.