The allegations were delivered.
What happened next?

The regulator’s record · RGC-000162355

The evidence arrived.
Why was the file closed?

Miss E and Mr J challenge the adequacy of the SRA’s response. They say their submission identified concrete signs of falsification and misleading court evidence, yet the regulator declined an investigation without resolving the document disputes. Their concern is not simply that the decision was adverse: it is what the decision does—and does not—explain.

We have reviewed the substantive report, indexed exhibits, receipt correspondence, two-page decision and subsequent challenge. The October report reaches beyond BH68: utility emails, forestry correspondence, banking evidence, conveyancing records and disclosure. It identifies documents, amounts, passages and versions to compare. It is not just an unsupported demand that the regulator agree with the family.

1. 24 June 2025 · Initial complaint. Mr J sent a complaint about Seldons; the Contact Centre acknowledged forwarding it to the Report Team.
2. 15 October · Information requested. Laurence Price asked for specific misleading statements, supporting evidence, the proceedings’ status and any judicial criticism.
3. 21 October · Expanded evidence offered. The outgoing email listed a report form, substantive report, index and exhibits. Native files, metadata and witness statements were offered. After a WeTransfer security restriction, Price provided a Mimecast route.
4. 23 October · Receipt confirmed. Price wrote: I confirm receipt of the files you have sent.
5. 30 October · File closed. The SRA declined investigation. Mr J challenged the decision in reply.
6. 4–8 November · Challenge and promised follow-up. Mr J sent a further seven-page challenge on 4 November. On 8 November Anthony Roberts at the Contact Centre said Price or the Report Team would respond in due course.

The response must be reported accurately. Price, signing as an SRA Investigation Officer, said the information had been assessed. The decision quoted the email/pole allegation and recognised the potential seriousness of falsification. It nevertheless said the court should consider the allegations first, referring to the absence of judicial criticism or positive findings and allowing for possible reconsideration. Read the decision record →

The gap is in the explanation of the assessment. The written decision gives no separate account of the banking, completion-record or disclosure allegations. It does not show whether originals were requested, versions compared or the offered metadata and witness evidence pursued. That is the point on which an answer is needed: what was checked, what remained untested, and why? Compare the five strands with the decision →

After the November promise, no later substantive answer or reopening was located in the reference, sender and subject searches used for this review. The SRA can resolve that gap by identifying the response, its date and the issues it addressed.

The SRA’s own policy makes the question sharper.

Its parallel-proceedings guidance allows regulatory work to continue alongside other proceedings, while recognising reasons to wait for facts or avoid prejudice. What case-specific reasons justified waiting for judicial findings, and how did that approach fit the SRA’s investigation policies? We are asking the SRA to identify the applicable test and explain its use here. Read the parallel-investigations policy ↗

That is how the wider story becomes traceable: the utility message, the court exhibit, the objection, the regulatory submission, the acknowledged receipt and the decision. The connection is the same disputed material moving through identifiable stages. Each stage creates its own question about who checked it and what they concluded.

Seven direct questions for Laurence Price and the SRA → · Submission and correspondence references →

Not a new accusation. A record with a history.

The question is not simply whether a serious allegation was made. Who received it, what did it identify, what answer followed—and what did the court decide?

The latest substantive Annex E located in the June 2026 trial folders runs to 24 pages. Its cover and signed final page say 13 October 2025, updated 6 February 2026. Earlier versions show how its scope expanded. The February text is the starting map for this series, not a claim that all its contents were sent in October.

Each strand below can be tested on its own documents. Their presence in one annex explains the family’s overall allegation; it does not make one disputed point proof of every other point. Version history and page references →

The email exhibit · The statement of truth · The missing notice question

If the emails were edited,
where was that disclosed?

Mr J alleges that Luke Cornwell put an edited email chain before the court without identifying the editing, and invoked client privilege only after the family challenged the self-forwarding. The alleged concealment—not the forwarding header alone—is the integrity issue.

The court material can now be identified precisely. In the June 2026 trial bundle, paragraph 42 of the second amended Particulars of Claim asserts acquisition of wayleave benefits and relies on MJM2 pages 20–25 as evidence of transfer. The pleading is marked filed on 23 September 2025; its statement of truth and Cornwell’s signature appear at bundle pages 35–36. The six email pages are at bundle pages 58–63. The National Grid chain shows Cornwell forwarding to himself on 31 January 2025.

No redaction explanation appears in that inspected pleading, exhibit cover or those six email pages. A separate disclosure-list entry or covering notice could answer the notice question. Mr Cornwell and Seldons are asked to identify it, its date and its recipients. Exact source references →

The explanation Mr J recalls—and the objection he says he made.

Mr J recalls a privilege/redaction explanation being given orally before Judge Paul Mitchell, possibly at a strike-out hearing, and says he objected to the method. He is not certain of the hearing or date. His October 2025 submissions separately refer to an explanation in Cornwell’s written Reply. The original Reply and hearing record are needed to establish the sequence and exact words; this recollection is not a reported judicial ruling.

A privilege explanation must answer the notice question.

CPR 31.19(3)–(4) requires the claim and grounds for withholding inspection to be stated in writing. PD 31B paragraph 35 addresses notice of altered electronic copies and preservation of the original. The reviewed allocation order places this claim on the multi-track, within PD 31B’s ordinary scope, subject to case-specific directions.

An oral explanation alone does not identify the required written record. The important question is not the colour of a redaction box. It is whether changes were disclosed, the original was retained and the presentation preserved its meaning.

1. Luke Cornwell: what was removed or changed, by whom and when? Was BH68 in the original incoming message?
2. Luke Cornwell and Seldons: where is the dated written notice or disclosure-list entry explaining the withheld material and its legal basis? If none exists, why not?
3. Seldons: who has the unaltered original, and what comparison supports the version relied upon in paragraph 42?
4. Luke Cornwell: when was the redaction explanation first given, what did it say, and what hearing record addresses Mr J’s objection?
5. The SRA: will you examine whether the court or opponent was misled by an undisclosed change or omission, and assess the knowledge of those responsible?

Cornwell’s 24 October denial and replacement-copy explanation are recorded below. A replacement printout should be connected to its original: show what changed, show what was disclosed, show what the verified pleading relied upon.

Cornwell’s full question → · SRA reconsideration question → · Read the rules and regulatory questions →

The firm’s own letter · 28 October 2025

Receipt acknowledged.
Position reserved.

We have now read the letter attached to Seldons’ email of 28 October. Signed Seldons LLP, it says:

We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence with attachments sent 15.08 on 27 October 2025 and reserve our position entirely with regard to the content.

The matching sent-mail record lists Annex E, Annex J-1 and Annex J-2. The email names the solicitor personally and the firm corporately, alleges falsification and asks for preservation of originals and metadata. The attached Annex E displayed in Outlook is two pages—not the later 24-page document. The record should not be inflated into proof that the firm received every subsequent exhibit or the entire later CPS bundle. Read the receipt and sending record →

What followed that acknowledged notice? The reservation does not explain who reviewed the allegations, what was preserved or what comparison was undertaken. Those are specific questions capable of a documented answer.

It would also be inaccurate to say the firm never rejected the allegations. In an email dated 24 October 2025, Luke Cornwell called the tampering allegations “baseless” and said further copies had been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally, rather than forwarded electronically. A second email maintained that the benefit of the 1963 and 1975 wayleaves had transferred to his client. Read the earlier responses →

The firm therefore did give a position. The question is whether its further copies and explanation resolve the alleged changes in content. Which original proves the wording, and where is the comparison? Question AE-02

A map for the developing investigation

One case. Seven strands.

The passages below describe what the February annex alleges, where it says so, and the records each strand needs. New evidence and responses will be linked to the relevant strand.

The forestry-report allegation is another distinct link.

Section D also alleges that a report attributed to Forestry Commission officer Henry Bexley was used to misrepresent compliance with an access order. That allegation names Mr Mayo and Mr Cornwell. It should be tested against the original report, request, visit notes and communications about court use.

The planning strand already records Bexley’s August 2024 observations, including his account of no signs of recent felling or processing at the visit and his statement that he did not suspect commercial firewood sales at the observed scale. Those observations must remain alongside the family’s challenge. They do not determine what occurred at every earlier date or whether a civil access order was complied with. Read the related planning and forestry reporting → · Read question AE-08 →

Connect the documents—not just the names.

The strongest connection to examine is a document’s journey: original message → disclosed copy → expert instruction → report → court reliance. At each step, identify the date, version, sender, recipient and proposition it was used to support.

The costs and joinder strands require their own schedules, transcripts and orders. The later planning and sale-related concerns concern the same neighbouring properties and family, but Annex E does not by itself establish coordination between every institution named across the website. A proposed connection should lead to a record that can confirm or contradict it.

Read all nine questions, organised by recipient →

The next chapter starts with the original.

A notice can show what was alleged. A receipt can show that it arrived. A denial can state a position. The next step is the record that explains what actually happened.

We will develop each strand as the originals, instructions, calculations, judicial reasons and material responses are reviewed. Seldons, Mr Cornwell, Mr Mayo, National Grid and the other recipients can identify an existing answer, supply a correction or provide the relevant non-privileged record. Responses belong beside the questions they address.

Read the source trail → · How to respond → · Follow the next development →