Investigations in the public interestEvidence. Enquiry. Accountability.
The Documents / M

Source note · Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152

Annex E: the particularised allegation of email insertion and evidential manipulation

The expanded Annex E alleges insertion of BH68 into correspondence originally about BH67, reliance on that material and omission of Miss E’s executed documents from expert instructions.

MSigned party allegation and request for referral24 PDF pagesSupplied PDF copy reviewed · 13 September 2026

What is in the file

The Unanswered Record has examined all 24 pages in this supplied PDF copy. Page references below refer to that copy.

The supplied Annex E is dated 13 October 2025 and expressly marked updated 6 February 2026. We examined all 24 pages, including the signed final page. References to this expanded version must not imply that every passage was already present in October.

The BH68 allegations

  • Pages 12–13: the family alleges alteration of a National Grid email chain, insertion of BH68 and reliance on emails and a diagram without the executed instrument supporting the claimed rights.
  • Pages 13–17: it alleges that Seldons supplied disputed material for expert use while withholding Miss E’s executed National Grid documentation. It challenges the resulting opinion and the £25 payment account.
  • Pages 19–20: the allegation is particularised as insertion of BH68 references into an exchange originally concerning BH67, with changes to phrasing and typography, followed by use in support of the boundary claim.
  • Pages 22–24: it requests criminal and regulatory referrals and court action.

Why it matters

This is a specific allegation about a specific alteration—not merely a general objection to Mr Mayo’s evidence. It identifies the pole reference, alleged mechanism and alleged litigation purpose. The direct test is a comparison of the retained messages, their attachments and the versions used in proceedings.

Scope of this note

These are the family’s allegations. The document also addresses costs, joinder, conveyancing and other matters; this note focuses on the BH68 reporting. Its legal conclusions and assertions about mandatory court action are the submitters’ arguments, not rulings. The native BH67-only exchange and the expert’s underlying instruction package are not reproduced in this annex.

Version and outcome update · 18 September 2026

The full version comparison, firm correspondence, SRA decision and later court order are now separately reviewed. The annex’s assertion that the SRA report remained active must be read against the 30 October 2025 closure decision; no later reopening record was found.

Read the updated source trail → · Explore all seven strands →

Publication status

The original PDF is retained outside this website. This source note summarises the supplied copy and does not replace the document itself. A publication copy has not yet been prepared.

Read the related article