Investigations in the public interestEvidence. Enquiry. Accountability.

Evidence. Enquiry. Accountability.

Questions of public importance
deserve answers.

We investigate concerns about the exercise of power, put precise questions to those involved, and publish our reporting alongside the supporting record.

The founding investigationOngoing investigation

BH68: The plan, the emails and the unanswered questions.

Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152

Miss E and Mr J challenge the documents used to support Mr Mayo’s claimed BH68 rights. Follow the agreement, the disputed correspondence, the family’s allegations and the responses in the record.

One hearing. Two demands for the record. Mr J links reliance on the disputed email to the hearing where costs were imposed. The family alleges the supporting costs records are being withheld. Read the connection →

Reporting updated

New to the case? Start here →Read the investigation →

Pick up the story

Latest developments.

All developments →

  1. Primary court record and questions expanded

    If the emails were edited, where was that disclosed?

    The amended claim’s paragraph 42, statement of truth and MJM2 email exhibit are now identified. The articles and linked recipient questions ask for the written redaction notice, preserved originals and checks supporting court reliance. The SRA review cites CPR 31.19 and PD 31B paragraph 35; Mr J’s hearing recollection is separately attributed.

    Read the update →

  2. Pleading and exhibit identified

    The verified pleading. The exhibit. The written-notice question.

    The BH68 article now links the precise pleading and email-exhibit pages, the family’s reported objection in court and the updated redaction-rule questions for Cornwell, Seldons and the SRA.

    Read the update →

  3. Case map and response record added

    Annex E: the allegations were delivered. What happened next?

    A seven-strand overview connects the latest Annex E to Seldons’ acknowledged receipt, Cornwell’s earlier denial, the SRA closure decision and the later trial order. Nine proposed questions are organised by recipient. The BH68 response record is updated to include the newly reviewed replies.

    Read the update →

One case · Connected strands

Choose where to begin.

00

Annex E: the wider case map

Start with the seven strands, the notice and response trail, and the later outcomes.

04

Planning, heritage & the sale

Examine the driveway records, Council correspondence and questions about the sale-related sign.

01

The plan & the agreement

Compare the BH68 plan with the agreements and explanations in the record.

02

The disputed emails

Follow the family’s alteration allegation, verification requests and recorded replies.

03

The costs questions

Read the public review, final notice and requests for the underlying costs record.

The first two strands are sections of the BH68 investigation. The costs reporting sits in the wider case file. Dates identify reporting updates, not the order of the underlying events.

Questions in focus

An answer has a place.

Browse all questions →

Who is being asked. What the record says. Why the answer matters.

Status reflects the supplied record and dated contributor accounts. Historical requests and new publication questions are identified separately.

Allegations & questions by party →People & organisations in the record →

The monthly edition / Issue 001

The case so far.
In one reading journey.

Read, save or share the September 2026 edition: the investigation, questions by party and supporting record.

Read Issue 001Download the PDF →Follow future editions →
Cover of The Unanswered Record, Issue 001, September 2026: The agreement. The emails. The answers still sought.

Why this case

A public hearing
for serious concerns.

Miss E and Mr J describe a dispute lasting more than two years. We are examining the record in connected strands, bringing their allegations, the supporting material and the available responses into view.

The costs and difficulty of pursuing a dispute can leave important questions unresolved. Our purpose is to make those questions, and the record behind them, accessible.

Why we are publishing →

Before this website · A public appeal for answers

She asked the court.
Now the questions are public.

Miss E, a pensioner, put her concerns about Barnstaple County Court into public view herself. Her review describes disputed costs and written requests for explanations that she says remained unanswered.

Standing beside her means keeping those questions visible—and examining the record behind them.

The costs investigation is developing. We have now examined a later final notice addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell. The family reports more than a year of requests for the underlying costs statement. Further reporting will follow as additional documents and responses are examined.

Read her original review (opens Google Maps in a new tab)Read the costs questions

The linked review is published under her own name.

From the editorial desk

Why the record matters.

The purpose of this publication, its sources and the responsibility that comes with asking questions in public.

All articles →Meet Daux Scythe →

The editorial desk

Have something to add?

Send a concise account, relevant source material, or a response to a specific question. Providing material does not automatically publish it.

Contact the publication →Responses & corrections →

The principle

The greater the trust,
the greater the duty to answer.