The house beside the route
The reported collision: five metres from the house.
Mr J describes a right of way crossing Lower Barley Hayes and passing within approximately two feet of the Grade II listed house. He says its first floor relies on a roughly 300-year-old timber beam, there is a single exit, and he understands the concrete has no steel reinforcement. His concern is the consequence of a heavy vehicle striking the house or obstructing that exit.
The earlier defence already records a reported collision. PD1, page 34, alleges that a tractor conducting business with Mr Mayo struck the tree beside the house and that the tree prevented a collision with the building. Mr J now identifies the driver as neighbouring farmer Mr Folland, whom he associates with Tarka Springs, and says the visit concerned collecting a basket for carrying forestry logs from Mr Mayo. Those identification and equipment details are his account. Photo, earlier allegation and current account →
Mr J places this tree approximately five metres from the house. He recalls Mr Folland telling the court that he lost control of his tractor and had to swerve into the tree to avoid hitting the house. The five-metre distance concerns the tree; the approximate two-foot clearance above concerns the route beside the building.
The family’s point is concrete: in their account, control had already been lost beside an occupied home. They say their complaint sought protection for Miss E, her pets and the building against a recurrence—not the suppression of ordinary access.
Open full image ↗
The family’s later working rebuttal records a dispute over the extent of the photographed damage; Miss E denies altering or enlarging it. The contemporary photographs, incident account and hearing evidence are therefore central to checking what happened.
What was the tractor carrying or collecting, for whose work, and what was done to protect the house after the reported strike? The photographed machinery and timber, together with Mr J’s account of the log-carrying equipment, raise a specific question about the journey’s purpose. The answer belongs in the access record. Questions to Mr Folland and Mr Mayo →
The duty in the conveyance—and the earlier undertaking.
Clause 2(ii) of the 1987 conveyance, referred to by the family as clause 2.2, requires the purchasers and their successors:
“to exercise with due care and skill the rights and liberties hereby granted and avoid as far as possible causing any damage injury nuisance or disturbance whatsoever in the exercise of such rights and liberties.”
This is the wording the family relies upon when asking how the route could be used without exposing the neighbouring home to harm. Read the deed reference →
Mr J also recalls Deputy District Judge Offen recognising a problem with the way the route was being used at the earlier hearing. The written interim order records Mr Mayo’s undertaking to use the driveway for residential purposes, excluding agricultural vehicles while allowing commercial vehicles for domestic purposes, such as oil deliveries. It also preserves a hooked-chain arrangement. Read the interim order reference →
What explains the move from that interim restriction to the later general vehicular right, and where were the collision evidence and clause 2(ii) addressed? The family asks for the reasoning connecting the evidence, the deed and the outcome. Why this matters to the judgment challenge →
What work was taking place?
Miss E and Mr J say this was more than occasional domestic tree maintenance. They allege substantial felling, timber movement and heavy-vehicle use, with noise, damage and safety consequences for their home. Mr J says the concrete surfacing was laid to facilitate those operations and that the previous owners did not consent. The work records, dates, routes and consent are among the specific matters the questions below ask Mr Mayo to identify.
The supplied aerial sequence begins in 2017, continues through 2019 and 2021, and ends in May 2025. It shows the changing appearance of the land; the licence history and dated operations record are needed to establish which cutting was authorised or exempt. The licence question →
02 / On the ground
The machinery was photographed.
The earlier Primary Defence document includes machinery and driveway photographs. The August 2026 court email again attached photographs of an excavator, its bucket and the working area. These images sit alongside the family’s allegation about the nature and scale of the activity. The earlier defence photographs →
Open full image ↗
Open full image ↗
Open full image ↗
Open full image ↗
The family asks why this material was not reconciled with the description of the operations given to the court. Which machines were used, for which work, and over which access route?
03 / From complaint to proposed court evidence
Follow the emails.
“I cannot see any current felling licence”.
David Dyball’s reply is dated 6 August 2024 at 16:06. He reports the concern to the local Woodland Officer “to look into what is happening and take any action required”. Read his reply below.
Read the reply at full size ↗
Mr J reports suspected unlawful felling and supplies location material and aerial images. David Dyball of the Forestry Commission replies: “I cannot see any current felling licence”. He refers the concern to the local Woodland Officer. Source: the Dyball exchange
After the visit, Mr Mayo asks Henry Bexley for an email confirming no illegal or commercial timber activity. He specifically asks that it say the chain “appeared locked at first glance”.
Mr Bexley sends typed visit notes for Mr Mayo to confirm. Repeating the account that access had been blocked, he writes: “This appeared to be the case on arrival with a padlocked chain across his driveway.”
Mr Mayo says he will discuss the email with his solicitor: “We may decide to forward to the judge”. He also asks to share it with Torridge District Council regarding an equipment shed and a new entrance across the field.
Mr Bexley advises no further felling until the licence is received. Mr Mayo agrees the following day. Source: the four-page correspondence
Read their correspondence.
This page shows Mr Mayo discussing possible use before the judge, followed by Mr Bexley asking him to confirm agreement with the visit notes. The complete four-page chain is linked below.
Open page 2 at full size ↗
Page image from the supplied “Felling Licence” correspondence. Contact email, telephone and office-address details are covered in these publication copies; names, dates and email wording are retained.
Why ask the subject of the complaint to confirm the notes?
The sequence is important: Mr Mayo requests particular wording; Mr Bexley sends his notes for Mr Mayo’s agreement; Mr Mayo then discusses their possible use before a judge and the Council. The family questions whether an independent inspection was being turned into evidence for one side of the access dispute.
Was Mr Mayo being asked to check facts he had supplied, or approve the officer’s assessment? What changed after his reply, and where was the complainant’s contrary evidence checked? Read the question to Henry Bexley and the Forestry Commission →
Mr Bexley’s notes say he found no fresh stumps or sawdust and did not suspect commercial firewood selling, based on the quantities and woodland size. They record old timber, recent disturbance by a minidigger and an approximately 1.2-metre path. He describes the woodland as about 90% ash, with approximately 70% of that ash showing moderate-to-severe dieback, and the pending application as regeneration felling. Several historical statements are expressly attributed to Mr Mayo. The family challenges that assessment against the imagery, machinery and use of the route. Read the scope of the recorded assessment →
04 / The access allegation
A padlock on a chain — or a locked barrier?
Miss E and Mr J say the chain was resting on an open hook and could be lifted off. They say that was the arrangement during Mr Bexley’s visit. The photograph below shows the configuration they rely on.
Open full image ↗
The exhibited interim order in related claim L00BP144 records undertakings concerning gates and an unlocked, hooked chain. Its heading is dated 13 August 2024 and its body specifies performance by 20:00 on 7 August. That chronology and the record of the 9 August visit are material. Source: the interim order and photograph
Did anyone test whether the chain prevented access, or was its appearance allowed to stand for that conclusion?
05 / Why this belongs in the right-of-way case
The trees and the track are connected.
The family’s case is that timber and machinery travelled over the route beside their home, imposing a burden that must be considered alongside the 1987 conveyance’s provisions about care, damage, maintenance and fencing.
The March 2025 amended defence quotes planning application 1/0638/2024/AGR as describing the existing access as “not suitable for heavy / long loads as narrow, very steep & winding”. Mr J asks how that description can be reconciled with the actual use of the route and the position advanced in court. Source: the quotation in the amended defence, paragraph 59
Mr J also links the concrete surfacing to the alleged expansion of forestry activity. When was it laid, for what loads, with whose consent, and what evidence explains the relationship between the work and the movement of timber?
The challenge was particularised.
The corrected October 2025 strike-out submissions allege that the forestry correspondence was used to create a false obstruction narrative, seek an injunction and obtain costs. Annex E, updated 6 February 2026, repeats the allegation of deliberate coordination involving Mr Mayo, Mr Cornwell and Mr Bexley. Source passages and dates →
The supplied correspondence bears a header showing Luke Cornwell of Seldons forwarding the chain to himself on 8 November 2024. The questions are which version was filed, how it was presented and how the contrary chain and machinery evidence was addressed.
One tree—and a photographic chronology requiring an answer.
Mr J’s statement dated 18 August 2026, sent to the courts on 19 August, also challenges the one-tree account and the judgment’s treatment of the scale of felling. He specifically challenges the conclusion, as he recalls it, that tree cutting had not occurred on the scale alleged. The question is precise: which tree and which period did the sworn account concern, and where did the court reconcile it with the photographic record? Statement and hearing-account source note →
Why the family alleges bias.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Judge Walsh was biased in the claimant’s favour and colluded with him. They connect that allegation to what they describe as the failure to reconcile the one-tree account with the photographic evidence, the reported loss of control beside the house, the protections they claim under clause 2(ii), and the earlier interim restriction on agricultural vehicles.
Their allegation is that minimising the operations also minimised the reason for the traffic and the danger they had complained of. Mr J says the final outcome left Miss E without effective protection against those risks. The challenge is therefore not simply how many trees were cut: it is whether an inadequate account of the activity displaced a material complaint about how the right of way was being used.
Where do the reasons address the driver’s reported admission, assess the risk of a recurrence and explain how the conveyance’s duty of care operates alongside the access declared? Read the court-record question →
Mr J also says he personally presented these documents before Judge Paul Mitchell and that, at trial before Judge Walsh, the material was treated as though it did not exist. His allegation is that the evidence was not meaningfully examined—not that it had never been delivered.
The July 2026 order declares a general right of way serving Higher Barley Hayes, including vehicles reasonably accommodated by the roadway. It also records actionable nuisance concerning the locked/second gate and dismisses the counterclaim. Those later gate findings must be distinguished from the disputed condition of the hook-and-chain arrangement during the August 2024 visit. The family challenges the outcome and the treatment of the evidence leading to it. Their question is exact: where do the reasons reconcile the cutting account, the photographs and the use of the route?
Mr J confirms that every attachment reached the court: the family printed the full material and also sent it via WeTransfer. His challenge concerns how that evidence was addressed. Which images and exhibits were before the court at each hearing, when were they received, and where do the reasons explain their treatment? Statement, delivery clarification and later order
The questions by party
Identify the work.
Produce the record.
FOR-01 · Henry Bexley / Forestry Commission
Was the chain actually locked?
On 9 August 2024, did Henry Bexley try to lift or open the chain? Produce the contemporaneous notes and photographs showing whether it physically prevented access, and explain the difference between its appearance and any check actually performed.
Why it matters: An impression of obstruction can affect court proceedings. The physical check and its record are central to the family’s challenge.
FOR-02 · Henry Bexley / Forestry Commission
Why was the subject of the complaint asked to confirm the notes?
Why were the 9 August 2024 visit notes sent to Mark Mayo for his agreement? Was he checking facts he had supplied, or being invited to approve the assessment? Identify the original notes, any changes following his reply, the independent checks and the procedure governing this exchange. Why was his requested account of apparent obstruction included, and was the complainant’s contrary evidence sought before the notes were used?
Why it matters: An official account must distinguish the officer’s observations from the investigated person’s account. Readers need to see who supplied, checked and changed each material statement.
FOR-03 · Henry Bexley / Forestry Commission
Which felling did the inspection assess?
Identify the land, cutting periods, timber volumes, machinery and historic imagery assessed. Supply the decision and plan for application 018/2760/2024, any exemption relied upon for earlier work, and the evidence addressing the family’s photographs and complaint.
Why it matters: The response must address the particular work reported, not leave uncertainty about which area and period were examined.
FOR-04 · Mark John Mayo
Why request the chain wording for possible court use?
Why did you ask for a statement that the chain appeared locked at first glance? What evidence shows it was locked rather than resting on an open hook, and how was that distinction explained when proposing to use the email before the judge?
Why it matters: The requested wording should be traceable to what happened at the visit.
FOR-05 · Mark John Mayo
One tree: which tree, which period—and what explains the images?
Mr J says you stated under oath that you cut only one tree. Identify the exact statement, the tree, land and period it concerned. How does that account fit the 2019–2025 imagery, the photographed cut timber and machinery, and the cutting described in the inspection notes? Give a dated schedule of the work, who carried it out, the quantities removed, the licence or exemption relied upon and the routes used. When were the field tracks used, and for what traffic?
Why it matters: The scope of the sworn account must be clear enough to compare with the dated record. The scale, authority and access route are central to the family’s challenge.
FOR-06 · Luke Cornwell / Seldons LLP
How was the officer’s impression presented to the court?
Identify the exact version of the Bexley correspondence filed, its exhibit reference, the hearing and the proposition it was used to prove. Was apparent obstruction presented as verified obstruction? Where was the distinction explained, and what checks supported that presentation?
Why it matters: The filed wording and the use made of it allow the alleged misrepresentation to be tested.
FOR-07 · Luke Cornwell / Seldons LLP
Where is the response to the chain and machinery challenge?
Identify the substantive response to the family’s photographs, the hooked-chain account and the forestry particulars in the strike-out submissions and Annex E. Preserve the original messages and identify any changes between the received chain, the 8 November 2024 self-forward and the filed exhibit.
Why it matters: The record must show how a specific evidential challenge was answered and which document version the court received.
FOR-08 · Judge Paul Mitchell · court record / Judge Timothy Walsh · court record
Where did the court reconcile the photographs, the collision and the access outcome?
Mr J says he presented the material before Judge Paul Mitchell and it was not meaningfully addressed at trial before Judge Timothy Walsh. Where do the hearing record and reasons compare Mr Mayo’s reported one-tree account with the dated images? For the trial and final judgment, where is Mr Folland’s reported evidence of losing control and swerving into a tree about five metres from the house addressed? Explain the treatment of clause 2(ii) of the 1987 conveyance and the earlier interim undertaking excluding agricultural vehicles. What reasons explain the later access outcome and the response to the risk of a recurrence?
Why it matters: The family says that minimising the operations displaced a material safety complaint. The evidence, the care obligations and the reasoning about vehicle use must be examined together.
FOR-09 · Mark John Mayo
How does the access proposal fit the actual use of the driveway?
The family’s March 2025 defence quotes application 1/0638/2024/AGR as describing the existing access as unsuitable for heavy or long loads. Identify the original wording, the loads contemplated, the route actually used, and when and why concrete was laid. What precautions followed the reported tractor collision, and how do you say the use complied with the due-care and damage-avoidance wording in clause 2(ii) of the 1987 conveyance? Identify the landowner consent and maintenance arrangements relied upon.
Why it matters: The application, work records, collision evidence and conveyance should be addressed together when explaining the burden and safety of the traffic beside Miss E’s home.
FOR-10 · Mr Folland / Mark John Mayo
Did the tractor strike prevent a collision with the house?
Mr J identifies Mr Folland as the driver, places the tree approximately five metres from the house and recalls him telling the court he lost control and swerved into the tree to avoid the building. Is that an accurate account of the incident and testimony? Identify the hearing passage, date, vehicle, equipment, load and purpose of the journey. Mr J says the visit concerned a basket for forestry logs from Mr Mayo. What contemporary records explain the loss of control, damage and precautions taken afterwards?
Why it matters: The family says this was an actual loss-of-control event beside an occupied home. Its cause, the driver’s testimony and the response to the risk of repetition are material to how the route was being used.
The record behind this article
Photographs, correspondence, the early defence, the strike-out particulars, Annex E and the post-judgment statement are indexed together with page references.
Open the complete source index → · Back to the Annex E allegations →
Have a record that answers these questions?
Send the question number, your response and supporting documents to theunansweredrecord@gmail.com. Responses and further evidence will be examined and the reporting updated.
The reporting record
What changed in this article.
- Evidence and hearing account
The collision, the conveyance and the judgment challenge
Mr J’s account of the tree’s five-metre distance and Mr Folland’s reported loss-of-control testimony is now connected to the exact deed wording, the earlier interim undertaking and the family’s allegation of judicial bias. The linked questions ask how those matters were addressed in the access outcome.
Read the safety and judgment connection - Source image added
David Dyball’s licence reply—now visible
Read the dated Forestry Commission reply: “I cannot see any current felling licence”, followed by the referral to the local Woodland Officer. The email page is reproduced at full size with recipient names and contact details covered.
Read Dyball’s reply - Source images added
Read the Bexley–Mayo emails
The correspondence discussion now displays the page containing the request to confirm the visit notes and the proposed court use. All four supplied pages can be read in full in the linked source record, with contact details covered.
See the email pages - Expanded investigation
The house beside the route—and the one-tree account
The tree-strike photograph and earlier defence are now linked to Mr J’s safety concerns, his account of the court challenge and ten questions about the operations, inspection notes and evidence. Mr Folland is included in the question register.
Read the expanded investigation - Contributor clarification
Forestry attachments: delivery to the court clarified
Mr J confirms that every attachment reached the court, with the material printed and also sent via WeTransfer. The article and source note now record this clarification; the questions concern how the court addressed the evidence.
Read the clarification - Illustrated investigation
The trees, the track and the photographic record
Four dated aerial images and machinery, timber and chain photographs accompany the family’s forestry allegations, the Bexley correspondence and nine precise questions about the right-of-way proceedings.
Read the illustrated investigation
Substantive additions and corrections will be recorded here. The full case can be followed through Latest developments.
The record must account for the images.
Not leave them out of the story.
The next step is to follow the evidence into the hearing: the exact exhibit, the use made of it and the reasons given.
Stay with the story
Follow the investigation
as the record develops.
Follow what changes when another document, account or answer enters the record.
Follow Daux Scythe, our presenter, on LinkedIn for new reporting, evidence reviews and significant developments. The website remains the home of the articles, documents and response record.
This opens his profile; choose Follow on LinkedIn.