Investigations in the public interestEvidence. Enquiry. Accountability.
The Unanswered Record · Allegations & Questions
Every allegation. Every question. By name.
Find the person or company. Open a question pack with the allegation, exact questions, evidence links and the response sought. Each pack can stand alone.
10 parties being questioned7 distinct recorded issues22 distinct questions
Only parties being questioned appear here. PCC and other supporting contributors remain cited in the source record; they are not listed as subjects of an inquiry. Allegations identify their source. Historical requests and proposed publication questions are labelled separately; a proposed question is not described as ignored.
10 party records · issues and questions are counted once above, even when linked to several parties.
Nick Shackson · Estates Specialist · National Grid
The plan and the claimed rights
Miss E and Mr J · allegation recorded in the reporting
Miss E and Mr J allege that the April 2025 plan was used to create a false impression that Mr Mayo held wayleave rights concerning BH68, and to mislead the court. They direct the allegation to Mr Mayo and, over the supply and description of the plan, to Nick Shackson and National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
The answer soughtIdentify the agreement. Identify the land and apparatus. Explain what the plan was intended to establish.
1 direct allegation0 response / verification concerns3 pack questions
National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Wayleave Records · Bodmin
National Grid’s standards. Who will account for this record?
The Unanswered Record · executive review proposed 18 September 2026
The publication asks Zoë Yujnovich, as current Chief Executive of National Grid plc, to commission a review of the operating company’s BH68 record integrity, response handling and compliance with applicable standards. This is a proposed oversight request, not an allegation that she participated in or already knew of the disputed events.
The answer soughtIdentify the standards. Appoint the reviewer. Authenticate the records. Account for the handling. Give a dated written outcome.
2 direct allegations2 response / verification concerns4 pack questions
Recipient of the April 2025 plan and a party discussed in the wider dispute.
The plan and the claimed rights
Miss E and Mr J · allegation recorded in the reporting
Miss E and Mr J allege that the April 2025 plan was used to create a false impression that Mr Mayo held wayleave rights concerning BH68, and to mislead the court. They direct the allegation to Mr Mayo and, over the supply and description of the plan, to Nick Shackson and National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
The answer soughtIdentify the agreement. Identify the land and apparatus. Explain what the plan was intended to establish.
1 direct allegation0 response / verification concerns1 pack question
Miss E and Mr J · Annex E and October 2025 notices; primary court record reviewed 18 September 2026
The family alleges that Luke Cornwell inserted BH68 into correspondence originally concerning BH67 and used it with Mr Mayo to support the boundary claim. Mr J alleges undisclosed editing with an explanation only after challenge. The 27 October 2025 email expressly addresses both Cornwell and Seldons LLP and demands preservation of originals and metadata.
The answer soughtIdentify each change, the written notice and withholding grounds under CPR 31.19, and the preserved original under PD 31B paragraph 35. Identify the first explanation, the hearing record and the checks supporting paragraph 42. What did Seldons do after the objection and notice?
1 direct allegation0 response / verification concerns2 pack questions
Miss E and Mr J · Annex E and October 2025 notices; primary court record reviewed 18 September 2026
The family alleges that Luke Cornwell inserted BH68 into correspondence originally concerning BH67 and used it with Mr Mayo to support the boundary claim. Mr J alleges undisclosed editing with an explanation only after challenge. The 27 October 2025 email expressly addresses both Cornwell and Seldons LLP and demands preservation of originals and metadata.
The answer soughtIdentify each change, the written notice and withholding grounds under CPR 31.19, and the preserved original under PD 31B paragraph 35. Identify the first explanation, the hearing record and the checks supporting paragraph 42. What did Seldons do after the objection and notice?
1 direct allegation0 response / verification concerns3 pack questions
Amelia Skea · National Grid · Wayleave Services · Bodmin Office (attributed April 2024 signature)
“Your wayleave”: whose words, and which agreements?
Miss E and Mr J · authenticity challenge; Mr J’s knowledge allegation dated 13 September 2026
The reply attributed to Amelia Skea says “your wayleave”, beneath a request naming BH67 and BH68. Mr J alleges possible knowing involvement by Ms Skea in misleading wording or failure to correct wording she knows was falsely attributed to her. He reports that neither pole’s agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family. The questions ask her and National Grid to authenticate the linked exchange and identify the instrument for each pole.
The answer soughtWas BH68 in the incoming message? Did Ms Skea send “your wayleave” in reply? Identify the agreement for each pole, the record behind reference 2624773 and any correction of false or changed wording. State who checked the referral and where its outcome is recorded.
1 direct allegation0 response / verification concerns2 pack questions
HHJ Paul Mitchell · Judiciary of England and Wales · Exeter Combined Court Centre
A costs order. A missing supporting record, according to the family.
Miss E and Mr J · signed final notice and published requests
Miss E and Mr J challenge the legitimacy and proportionality of the costs decision. They allege that the supporting costs statement has not been produced, does not appear on the court file and remains undisclosed despite repeated requests. The final notice directs the demand for the record and reasons to Judge Paul Mitchell.
The answer soughtIdentify the statement or other material considered. Show the filing and service record. Explain the calculation and payment timing. Locate the recorded reasons.
1 direct allegation0 response / verification concerns5 pack questions
Mark Hacking · Partner · Geldards LLP · Nottingham
Where is the promised substantive response?
Documented commitment · later non-response reported by Mr J
On 7 May 2026, Mark Hacking of Geldards LLP promised a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence. Mr J reports that the substantive answers are still awaited as of 12 September 2026.
The answer soughtIdentify the dated answers said to have been given. Complete the promised response or explain what prevents it and who is responsible.
0 direct allegations1 response / verification concern1 pack question
Documented commitment · later non-response reported by Mr J
On 7 May 2026, Mark Hacking of Geldards LLP promised a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence. Mr J reports that the substantive answers are still awaited as of 12 September 2026.
The answer soughtIdentify the dated answers said to have been given. Complete the promised response or explain what prevents it and who is responsible.
0 direct allegations1 response / verification concern1 pack question
Chief Executive of National Grid plc; proposed recipient of a group-level review request concerning NGED South West’s BH68 records and response handling.
National Grid’s standards. Who will account for this record?
The Unanswered Record · executive review proposed 18 September 2026
The publication asks Zoë Yujnovich, as current Chief Executive of National Grid plc, to commission a review of the operating company’s BH68 record integrity, response handling and compliance with applicable standards. This is a proposed oversight request, not an allegation that she participated in or already knew of the disputed events.
The answer soughtIdentify the standards. Appoint the reviewer. Authenticate the records. Account for the handling. Give a dated written outcome.
0 direct allegations1 response / verification concern6 pack questions
Regulatory scrutiny · submission, decision and follow-up
Questions for the SRA.
Does the evidence justify an investigation into the allegations concerning Luke Cornwell and Seldons LLP? Read the three concerns, relevant conduct standards and four proposed questions for the regulator.
The family also challenges the SRA’s handling. Seven separate questions ask Laurence Price and the SRA to explain the assessment, the court-first reasoning and the promised follow-up. The new publication questions have not been sent.
Identify the point. Produce the record. Answer the question.
We publish to press for answers. A request to authenticate an email, identify an agreement or explain a change to evidence calls for a direct response. A referral, an acknowledgement or the passage of time does not resolve the underlying question.
Where precise requests remain unanswered alongside documented discrepancies, that continuing gap warrants scrutiny—both of the account being advanced and of how the challenge has been handled. We put those gaps before the public so they can be examined, not lost in correspondence. Readers should be able to see exactly what was asked, what was answered and what remains outstanding.
Produce the original. Identify the agreement. Explain the discrepancy. If the record is wrong, correct it with evidence. If an answer cannot be given, explain what prevents it and who will resolve the issue.
Each party question pack connects the allegation or concern to its sources, originating article and stable question IDs. Material responses and corrections belong beside the issue they address.
Register compiled from the reporting reviewed on 12 September 2026. Source links open reviewed notes; original PDFs are not published in this draft. New editorial questions have not been sent by this publication. Use the public website address when sharing a question pack with an external recipient.
Planning strands · 22 publication questions · Not yet sent
Planning, heritage and the sale-related sign.
The family’s unequal-treatment and assessment-integrity allegations, the quoted 14-day plan requirement, and questions about the photograph, claimed visit and handling of objections. Open a recipient’s section for the source basis and why each question matters.
A wider allegation map and questions for Seldons, Luke Cornwell, Mark John Mayo, National Grid, the Forestry Commission and the SRA. The recorded replies and later outcomes appear alongside the concerns.
