By Alexa Morden
In 2024, Film Industry Watch published a piece titled “The Disappearance of TSG Casting and Talent Status: A Tale of Uncertainty and Loss”, which raised important questions about the sudden vanishing of an agency that left some actors and parents of child actors unpaid, confused, and misled. At the time, there was no clear answer as to where TSG Casting had gone or what had happened to the people behind it.
Now, after weeks of investigation, victim outreach, and independent reporting, I have that answer: TSG Casting didn’t disappear, it rebranded. But the allegations and reports of withheld pay and unpaid fees followed. What started as a solo investigation into a agency sparked a BBC primetime news feature across the UK, exposing the scale of exploitation behind the fraudulent ‘Lucy Harrison Casting.’ This piece digs deeper, uncovering how the same behaviour was able to persist and resurface under new names for years – despite having already been exposed.
TSG Casting and Talent Status Group became Lucy Harrison Casting (LHC) — an agency that, as of 2025, is at the centre of multiple allegations of financial misconduct, fraud, misrepresentation, and legal intimidation. It seems the same woman who ran TSG is operating LHC under the alias “Lucy Harrison” — a name not connected to any Companies House filings or legal ownership of any business. In fact, “Lucy Harrison Casting” and its CEO “Lucy Harrison” don’t appear anywhere online outside of their own website, Facebook, and Instagram page.
It appears that this fabricated persona was used to continue a pattern of financial abuse with a layer of plausible deniability. I discovered all of this because I recognised the red flags in comments on social media, having already been at the heart of unearthing other industry malpractice over the past 18 months. This included the “Bodhi Talent Scandal,” where a con-artist agent used actors’ work and fake cancer charity workshops to steal money before being exposed, filing for bankruptcy, and disappearing.
I’ve learned to pick up on patterns of bad practice and the emotional manipulation that usually comes with them. It’s not hard for a rogue agent to take advantage of the hierarchy that exists in this industry — a hierarchy that often leaves actors feeling that if they speak out or ask questions, even when warranted, they are “rocking the boat” or risking their careers.
Through my experiences helping creatives facing wrongdoing in the entertainment and performing arts industries, I’ve found that malpractice and exploitation are not only rife but also enabled by an unregulated system that leaves those affected isolated, unsupported, and often silenced. Reports, if made, aren’t taken seriously, or if they are, organisations claim there’s only so much they can do.
So, it seems to come down to those of us outside the traditional structures being forced to do what no one else is doing — collecting evidence, connecting the dots, offering support, and making noise in the hope that the silence finally breaks.
This isn’t a job I ever expected, or wanted, to be doing, but when the industry refuses to protect its most vulnerable, we have no choice but to protect each other. That’s why I’m writing this article: so you can be equipped not only with this information but also with a roadmap of red flags to look out for — so you don’t become unwittingly caught up in something like this.
Even now, with regulatory bodies investigating LHC, reports being made to the police and Action Fraud, and an eye-watering running total of money owed, industry organisations still feel they can’t let LHC clients left in the lurch know why their agent is under investigation — or warn them about the steps they likely need to be taking if they’ve booked work via this agency.
LHC is even claiming to some clients that they intend to continue working as an agency, and to rejoin casting directories, under a new name. With no public notice, no safeguarding guidance, and no duty of care being shown to those still potentially at risk, what’s to stop them?
I’m just an actor — an actor who, seven years ago, started a podcast and online platform that speaks honestly about the realities of working in this business, and the parts that no one else tends to spotlight. I never set out to become an investigator, whistleblower, or advocate. But when people come to you with nowhere else to turn, or no one else who will listen — you listen. And you act.
Because silence, in this industry, protects abusers and enables cycles of exploitation. Speaking out protects others. It creates ripples, it gets people talking, and it helps to break harmful patterns.
When I began my sleuthing into “Lucy Harrison Casting” and the “well-known scammer” behind the agency (as described in an article I found on this very website), I was prepared to find dodgy dealings, questionable pasts, and mishandled money. What I didn’t expect was to hear mothers of child actors as young as two telling me stories about financial fraud.
What began as a few familiar warning signs soon grew into an archive of testimonies, documents, emails, and inconsistencies that could not be ignored.
There is so much to share in regards to this case, and you can hear the most important findings in “Lucy Harrison Casting: A Cautionary Tale” on The 98% podcast. But in a nutshell: Lucy Harrison Casting is not who, or what, it claimed to be. It is the latest in a string of agencies used to exploit actors, conceal financial misconduct, and avoid accountability.
What started as a few comments in a Facebook group regarding late payments and invoicing confusion around this agency led me to discover that LHC was using a company called “Happy House Productions” to handle their finances. Actors were told to invoice HHP in order to be paid for jobs. This is not standard practice and seemed to blur the lines of accountability over who was actually responsible for paying actors — a tactic that benefitted the agency, not the talent, who were waiting months, and in some cases years, for money owed.
Payments ranged from small recall fees to huge commercial buyouts. Typically, an agent invoices the production company directly. The payment is then deposited into a client account — a protected fund that the agent has no legal right to dip into. Once the agreed commission is taken, the remaining fee is sent to the actor, along with a remittance — a document showing the original payment amount, what was deducted, and what the actor has received.
When actors started chasing Lucy Harrison Casting for payment from jobs they had worked on, LHC claimed they had nothing to do with the finances and directed them to Happy House Productions instead, insisting the two companies were totally separate and unrelated. This has since been proven false, considering the director of HHP appears to be married to Marianna — the woman who seems to be operating Lucy Harrison Casting, and the same person previously behind TSG Casting.
Now that Happy House Productions has entered liquidation and is under investigation by regulatory bodies, LHC has shifted the narrative — stating they’ve been suspended from casting platform Spotlight due to HHP’s financial situation. LHC even tried to blame me (through unfounded legal threats) for “them” going into liquidation, with no mention of HHP at all. So, were they connected to Happy House or not? It seemed they couldn’t keep their own story straight.
They were also clearly unaware that I had already discovered a charge filed in January 2025 showing that Happy House Productions had entered into a financing agreement with Apollo Business Finance — a company that provides invoice financing, where a business receives most of the value of an invoice upfront from a third party, who later collects the full amount from the client and keeps a percentage as their fee.
We can learn a lot from this situation, which is why in my podcast episode I break down my armchair investigation from start to finish — so you can learn how to do your own due diligence when working with an agent. I walk through the red flags I spotted on the LHC website, what I uncovered through Companies House, and how to access public records that anyone can find. I also explain some of the laws and legalities around payments — things every actor should know, but that no one ever really teaches us.
For example, in the UK it is unlawful for an agent to hold onto an actor’s money for more than ten days. If a production company sends your fee to your agent, and that agent fails to transfer it to you within ten days, that is illegal. There is no reason for you not to have that money right away.
It is also illegal for an agent to access or use any money held in the client account. That money belongs to you, the client — not the agent. So, if an agent ever says they’re having “cash flow problems,” or are unable to pay invoices themselves, that is not to be taken lightly. An agent should never have cash flow issues, because the money coming in should be going directly back out to the actors who did the work, minus the agent’s agreed commission.
When Lucy Harrison Casting launched, some actors were told they needed to pay for headshots through the agency in order to be represented or put forward for work. It is unlawful in the UK for an agent to require any sort of fee or paid-for service to join the agency. No agent should ever make you pay upfront for classes, workshops, headshots, coaching, or admin fees as a condition of signing with them.
Dozens of actors have now reported tens of thousands of pounds in unpaid earnings. Some have discovered discrepancies between what LHC invoiced production companies and what they were told they were paid. Children have had wages withheld or stolen entirely. Some clients had no idea they were owed buyouts or re-air fees that were paid to the agent months ago — until they contacted production directly.
When challenged, LHC and Marianna seemed to resort to gaslighting, manipulation, and, in some cases, intimidation. As well as not being transparent with clients and misleading industry professionals (including casting directors), LHC even sent emails to Equity and Spotlight about a former client, in what appeared to be an attempt to keep her quiet about her experience. I’ve seen these shocking emails myself, described by the actor as “slanderous.” Instead, this actor thankfully used her voice to warn others in a whistleblowing interview on The 98%.
I also received threats personally — emails that seemed to be AI-generated legal jargon. They were sent, I believe, to scare me into not releasing the information I had gathered after I offered them a right to reply for the podcast episode, which I had aimed to release in good faith and in the interest of the public. I was somewhat expecting this kind of threatening language and intimidation, having seen it used as a tactic to silence people I had helped in the past. (I have since learned that just because someone threatens you with legal action doesn’t mean they have a case.)
I’ve even heard from other actors, and parents of child actors, about agents elsewhere threatening legal action for things such as speaking directly to production, or sharing their opinion on social media. (Things you are well within your rights to do. And FYI — there can be no “defamation case” if what you are sharing is true, especially when you have evidence.)
From small suggestions and prompts to clients, we now have investigations by government bodies and yet another liquidated company to add to the list of this rogue agent’s operations. But this story is not yet over, and many involved feel not enough is being done. More victims are coming forward each week, and legal proceedings may follow. But the main worry is that the people behind this years-long scam will simply continue, as they have before, while those they have exploited are left to deal with financial instability, shame, regret, a loss of confidence, and a sense of distrust that may never fully leave them — without much assurance that something like this won’t happen again.
Hopefully we, as an industry, can learn from this. Not just in regard to specific individuals from rogue agencies, but by looking more critically at how the system itself is allowed to operate. There must be change: actual regulation around who can become an agent, stricter codes of conduct, more safeguarding in place when things go wrong, and more scrutiny regarding people with sole management of other people’s money.
In the meantime, we as actors can start to take our power back. As Karis, the former LHC client, said on The 98%:
“I understand my worth. I understand my value. I have enough self-respect and integrity, confidence and dignity, to know when I can stand up and shout loudly. I won’t be taken advantage of.”
Speaking out makes a difference. Don’t let fear keep you small. Anyone who makes you feel like speaking out against wrongdoing will “ruin your career” is someone who benefits from the fear that myth creates. A good agent wouldn’t want you to feel intimidated — they would want you to feel empowered.
This all started unravelling because a few actors began speaking online, and then joined together to figure things out and seek help. Those who take advantage of others in this industry have benefitted from a system built on silence and fear for too long. The best way to dismantle that system is to use your voice — for yourself, and for others. Because the more we shine a light on what certain people would rather keep in the dark, the fewer places they have left to hide.
If you have been affected by Lucy Harrison Casting or an agency acting similarly, you are not alone. In the episode description of The 98% podcast exposing LHC, you’ll find a link with clear, practical next steps to take if an agent is withholding payment you are entitled to.
Listen to The 98% podcast wherever you get podcasts.
Follow @the98percentpod.
The 98% is now a newly registered Community Interest Company, created to continue advocacy, education, and awareness for actors navigating an unregulated industry. If you, or someone you know, is interested in financially supporting a grassroots organisation with the aim of protecting performers, promoting transparency, and providing support — please get in touch: the98percentpod@gmail.com.
Timeline
OCT 2022 — TSG Casting applied to voluntarily dissolve the agency on Companies House (believed to be due to complaints surfacing regarding late payments).
DEC 2022 — Some TSG clients receive an email from “Lucy Harrison” (reportedly Marianna — the woman who ran TSG — posing under an alias) saying she was “leaving” TSG and “starting her own agency,” Lucy Harrison Casting. No formal announcement is made to clarify TSG’s closure.
EARLY 2023 — LHC becomes active. Actors are pressured into purchasing headshots directly from the agency to be considered for work — an unlawful and unethical practice. Marianna attends certain photography sessions but introduces herself as “Lucy.”
MARCH 2023 — People are told Lucy is off on bereavement leave after the “sudden death of her mother.”
EARLY FEB 2024 — The 98% helps expose the conman agent behind “Bodhi Talent” and raises awareness around the issue of rogue agencies and bad practice.
LATE FEB 2024 — The 98% receives the first email from a former LHC client detailing how actors were required to pay for headshots with “Lucy” in order to be represented and put forward for work. LHC is reported to UK actor union Equity, but the complaint is dismissed.
JAN 2025 — Happy House Productions (the company handling the finances of LHC and payments to actors) enters into a charge agreement with Apollo Finance, a third-party financing company. This indicates the agency had borrowed against future earnings while still owing money to actors.
EARLY MAY 2025 — Social media chatter opens a dialogue regarding late payments and questionable correspondence from LHC and Happy House Productions.
MID MAY 2025 — LHC clients receive a round-robin email saying Lucy is “off work with PTSD after a sudden bereavement.” People are told on the phone it is Lucy’s mother that has died (again). Maz and Allison (the “bookers” at LHC) claim they do not have access to the accounts to pay people, but that Lucy will return at the end of June.
LATE MAY 2025 — Alexa of The 98% begins her armchair investigation into LHC, TSG, and the woman behind the agencies, Marianna. Advice is posted on social media about how to recover money owed. LHC clients begin requesting remittances from production companies. Discrepancies are confirmed between what was invoiced and what actors received — if money was ever received at all.
JUNE 2025 — Legal threats and libellous emails are issued from LHC in an attempt to silence those speaking out. The 98% publishes the episode unveiling information gathered. Regulatory bodies confirm that LHC and Happy House are the same entity. Investigations begin, and LHC is suspended from UK casting directory Spotlight. Happy House goes into liquidation, but some LHC clients receive an email saying LHC intends to continue under a new name (the same pattern as with TSG) and that Lucy won’t be returning. LHC cites an “online smear campaign.”
JULY 2025 — As actors and parents of child actors chase payment and ask production companies for remittances, evidence emerges that all manner of money had been withheld or stolen.
AUGUST 2025 — EASI continues to investigate. Some actors prepare to take Marianna and Edward Lightfoot to small claims court. LHC attempts to continue operating under “Happy House Media.” The website and Facebook page for LHC remain live — until the BBC covers the story.
Alexa Morden is an award-winning actor and founder of The 98% CIC — a newly registered Community Interest Company dedicated to advocacy, education, and systemic change in the entertainment industry. Through her coaching and consultancy service Acting With Alexa, Alexa supports actors in their craft and careers with empowerment and confidence. Through her podcast, online platform, coaching, and investigative work, she champions transparency, accountability, and the changes needed for a safer, fairer industry.
@alexa_morden | @the98percentpod | @acting.with.alexa
Legal Disclaimer
This article is an investigative report written by the author and published by Film Industry Watch for the purposes of public interest, transparency, and education within the entertainment industry. The content of this article is based on information obtained from publicly available records, direct communications, and accounts provided by individuals. Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the material presented.
All statements contained herein are made in good faith and are based on evidence available at the time of publication. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Film Industry Watch. Neither the author nor Film Industry Watch intends to harm the reputation of any individual or organisation. If subsequent evidence emerges that materially alters the facts as reported, corrections or clarifications may be issued.
Nothing in this article should be taken as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to seek independent legal or professional guidance where necessary. If you find any error in the article, please contact us immediately.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Film Industry Watch and the author disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, or inconvenience arising from reliance on the information contained in this publication.
