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

Source note · Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152

Geldards’ April and May 2026 replies

Mark Hacking’s replies about NGED’s position, the disputed status of earlier requests, receipt of the Skea letter and routing of further correspondence.

JEmail correspondence export4 PDF pagesSupplied PDF copy reviewed · 12 September 2026

What is in the file

The Unanswered Record has examined all 4 pages in this supplied PDF copy. Page references below refer to that copy.

24 April: earlier requests said to have been dealt with

Pages 2–3: Mark Hacking of Geldards says his firm is instructed for National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc. He says he is instructed that earlier information and document requests “were dealt with”, and asks the family to identify the further material sought and the basis and remedy of its proposed claim.

Page 2: Mr J disputes that earlier requests received substantive answers and initially asks for confirmation of authority before engaging substantively. The later exchange records his acceptance that authority has been confirmed.

7 May: the letter acknowledged and a substantive response promised

Page 1: Mr Hacking acknowledges receipt by forwarding of the subsequent email to Amelia Skea with its letter before action. He states NGED’s position that Ms Skea and Mr Shackson acted in the course of employment and that any claim would be against NGED. That is the solicitor’s stated position, not a determination adopted by this publication.

He asks that further contact on the matter be directed to him. He says he is reviewing recent emails and letters addressed to Mr Shackson and will respond substantively. That promise specifically refers to the Shackson material; it must not be rewritten as an express authentication of the Skea exchange.

The question left by these replies

These are substantive correspondence events and must not be erased by a claim of complete silence. They do not themselves authenticate the April 2024 exchange or produce the particular agreement or records covering BH68. No later substantive response is included in this supplied export. The question is which answer and supporting documents resolved the disputed requests, if any.

The September 2026 date at the top is an export timestamp. The reproduced replies are dated 24 April and 7 May 2026.

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