Founding investigation · Editorial draft
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152
A neighbour dispute. A series of institutional decisions.
A record to examine, one question at a time.
An investigation in progress. Return here as the articles, evidence and responses develop.
The story is still unfolding
One case. Connected questions.
Mr J connects the disputed BH68 email to the hearing at which costs were imposed against Miss E. The family challenges both the documentary claim and the basis of that financial order. Follow the record from the agreement to the hearing, and from the decision to the requests for answers.
Begin with the hearing connection →One case · Connected strands
Choose where to begin.
Annex E: the wider case map
Start with the seven strands, the notice and response trail, and the later outcomes.
Planning, heritage & the sale
Examine the driveway records, Council correspondence and questions about the sale-related sign.
The plan & the agreement
Compare the BH68 plan with the agreements and explanations in the record.
The disputed emails
Follow the family’s alteration allegation, verification requests and recorded replies.
The costs questions
Read the public review, final notice and requests for the underlying costs record.
The first two strands are sections of the BH68 investigation. The costs reporting sits in the wider case file. Dates identify reporting updates, not the order of the underlying events.
Background
Start here.
Miss E and her family describe a neighbour dispute that led to dealings with a council, the police, the courts and other organisations. They believe important parts of their concerns have not been adequately addressed.
This case file is the starting point for examining those concerns. Each article will identify the documents it relies on, explain the relevant events and include the positions and responses available in the record.
The first strand concerns an electricity apparatus plan, a wayleave agreement, disputed emails and verification requests about Pole BH68. The supplied documents contain both questions and replies. Our first article considers what those exchanges clarify and where the requests for explanation became more specific.
Separate regulatory questions · proposed, not submitted
Does this record warrant an SRA investigation?Three solicitor-conduct concerns and a separate review of the regulator’s handling. Read the submission, acknowledged receipt, closure and questions for Laurence Price and the SRA.
Open the SRA review and questions ↗Follow the people. Follow the record.
Allegations & Questions.
Organised by party.
See what is alleged, who raises it, the supporting documents and the question or response linked to each person and company.
Open the party-by-party register ↗Reporting updates
What’s new in the record.
- Submission and regulatory response examined
- Primary court record and questions expanded
- Pleading and exhibit identified
New strand · Planning & heritage
A sign at the property. Questions in the planning file.
The family alleges unequal treatment and suspects planning concerns are being used to obstruct its sale. The new article examines the recorded permissions, disputed concrete works, heritage objections and the unverified origin of the smaller displayed sheet.
Read the planning investigation → · Questions for the Council, officers and applicant →
New overview · Historical allegations and later outcomes
Annex E connects the strands.
The February 2026 annex provides a map of the family’s allegations. The overview now records Seldons’ October receipt and denial, the SRA’s decision not to investigate and the adverse July 2026 trial order. The family challenges that outcome; the approved reasons and subsequent appeal position are a separate verification task.
Articles & updates
The reporting, as it develops.
01Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan.
The correspondence concerning Pole BH68, read alongside the supplied plan and agreement.
Articles may examine events out of sequence. Publication dates describe the reporting; dates within the articles describe the events.
One case. A connected record.
22 questions, organised by party.
Follow each question to its recipient, available response, source documents and originating article.
Open the questions register ↗The questions
Precision matters.
What did the plan identify?
The correspondence uses descriptions concerning apparatus and land, and later describes the map as showing a general area. The article sets those descriptions alongside the replies in the bundle.
Who prepared or supplied the plan?
The later correspondence asks whether the plan was personally prepared by the recipient. Authorship and the act of sending a plan are distinct questions.
How do the rights relate to the apparatus?
The supplied wayleave and correspondence should be read together. A record of a payment, the scope of an agreement and the position of a pole each answer different questions.
People & organisations
Names in the record.
Each name links to its documented role and source references. Being named in this index does not establish wrongdoing.
Search the party indexThe public starting point · Barnstaple County Court
A public review.
Questions still demanding answers.
Before this website, Miss E put her concerns before the public herself. A pensioner defending a neighbour dispute, she described why she believed the court process had failed her—and published images of her requests for answers.
It takes courage to question an institution. We stand beside her by following the documents and keeping the questions in view.
External source: Google Maps. The review identifies its author by her own name. Full review and all three attached images examined on 13 September 2026.
Reported reach: Mr J says Miss E told him Google had notified her that the review had been viewed more than 1,000 times.
Two written requests. Three published images.
- 13 November 2025 · Image 1
- A request addressed to HHJ Paul Mitchell for written reasons for the costs ordered following the hearing of 10 March 2025, including the decision to require immediate payment.
- 12 December 2025 · Images 2–3
- A request addressed to HHJ Mitchell, copied to Deputy District Judge Johnson, asking about the order dated 21 March 2025. It questions the amendment-costs reasoning and the assessment of £3,500, of which £1,750 was imposed.
Later correspondence · Reporting updated 15 September 2026
More than a year of requests.
Where is the costs record?
Miss E and Mr J challenge the legitimacy and proportionality of the costs decision. They report that neither Judge Paul Mitchell, Barnstaple County Court nor claimant Mark John Mayo has supplied them with the N260 or equivalent itemised costs statement supporting the assessment, despite repeated requests.
They describe the 10 March 2025 hearing as approximately one hour and question the amount in the context of the hedge dispute. The questions below seek the work, fees and reasoning behind the figures—not just the time spent in the hearing.
29 April 2026 · The signed final notice
The Unanswered Record has examined Mr J’s signed, two-page Final Notice – Outstanding N260 and Reasons for Costs Order, addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell. It states that no N260 has been produced and that it does not appear on the court file. It asks for the statement, confirmation of filing and service, and a full explanation of the costs decision within seven days.
This is later correspondence supplied to the publication, separate from the three images attached to the original review. The seven-day period was requested by the letter’s author. The original signed PDF is retained off-site.
Judge Paul Mitchell · Barnstaple County Court · Mark John Mayo
The allegation · Contributor account
The family’s allegation: an unjustified order used as pressure.
Miss E and Mr J allege that the costs order was fictitious and illegitimate, intended to exert coercive pressure rather than reflect a justified assessment. They point to the continued non-production of the underlying costs statement, calculation and adequate reasons as the basis for that allegation.
Mr J says Miss E presented her signed BH68 wayleave agreement at the hearing, while Mr Mayo relied on the disputed email attributed to Amelia Skea. He questions why costs were imposed against Miss E in those circumstances and what the court recorded about the competing material.
Mr J says requests for the basis of the amount have been put to Judge Paul Mitchell, Jack Webb, Luke Cornwell and Mark John Mayo. The question is specific: identify the costs statement, the work and figures claimed, the filing and service record, and the reasons for the amount ordered. If those records cannot be produced, explain why.
10 March hearing. 17 March claimed service.
Mr J also reports that Mr Mayo stated under oath that the N260 was sent to all parties on 17 March 2025. Miss E and Mr J dispute that account, say no statement or proof of that service has been produced to them, and allege a deliberate false statement. They seek investigation of that allegation as possible contempt of court.
The reported service date is seven days after the 10 March hearing. What costs statement was before the judge on 10 March? What was allegedly sent on 17 March, to whom and by what method? Produce that document and the dispatch and service evidence, and explain how the dates relate to the assessment and the order dated 21 March.
For summary assessment of costs, Practice Direction 44, paragraph 9.5, requires an itemised, signed statement broadly following N260; for hearings other than fast-track trials, filing and service are required at least 24 hours before the hearing. Paragraph 9.6 addresses non-compliance in the court’s costs decision. The question is what was supplied, when, and how any failure was addressed. Practice Direction 44, paragraphs 9.5–9.6 ↗
What justified the amount, and what consideration was given to Miss E’s evidence and objections? The hearing record and the costs record are both needed to examine the family’s challenge.
The costs questions that call for answers.
Open Judge Paul Mitchell’s named question pack →
Read the source note: the 29 April 2026 final notice
COSTS-01 · Judge Mitchell: what record supported the costs assessment?
What N260 or equivalent signed costs statement was before you when costs were assessed following the 10 March 2025 hearing? Identify the document, its date and where it is held, and provide the available copy through the court. If no such statement was available, what other material supported the assessment and why did the court proceed on that basis?
Why it matters: A financial order must be capable of explanation by reference to the material and reasoning used. The central issue is the basis of the assessment, not simply whether a document carries a particular form number.
COSTS-02 · When was the costs statement filed—and when was Miss E given it?
Identify when and how the costs statement was filed with the court and served on Miss E. Produce the filing and service record. If it was not filed or served within the applicable time, how was that addressed, and what opportunity was Miss E given to examine and challenge the costs sought? Mr J reports that Mr Mayo stated under oath that the N260 was sent to all parties on 17 March 2025, and the family disputes that claim. What record establishes the asserted service, and what costs material was available at the earlier 10 March hearing?
Why it matters: The person facing a financial demand needs to know its basis and have a meaningful opportunity to challenge it. Filing with the court and serving the other party are separate matters.
COSTS-03 · How were the £3,500 and £1,750 figures reached?
The published correspondence challenges an assessment of £3,500 and a £1,750 payment requirement. What work, hours, rates, fees and adjustments produced those figures? Identify the recorded reasoning, the operative order and the payment deadline. Explain the basis for the payment timing that Miss E describes as immediate.
Why it matters: The amount assessed, the amount payable and the time for payment each require a clear explanation. A short hearing alone does not reveal all the work for which costs may have been sought.
COSTS-04 · Where are the reasons for the costs decision?
Where are the reasons explaining the costs assessment and payment requirement recorded? Identify any judgment, order, hearing recording, transcript or contemporaneous note that contains them, and explain how Miss E can obtain the relevant record. What costs submissions were considered, and what objections by Miss E were addressed?
Why it matters: A party cannot meaningfully understand or challenge a decision if its reasoning cannot be located. The question calls for the decision’s recorded basis, not a private discussion with the judge.
COSTS-05 · Why do the costs-record requests remain unresolved?
What substantive response addresses the requests repeated in the 29 April 2026 final notice? Identify the date, recipient and supporting records for any response already given. If the requested documents or reasons have not been provided, explain what remains outstanding, who is responsible for responding and how the request will be resolved.
Why it matters: Repeated requests for the basis of a financial order should lead to a traceable outcome. The continuing reported gap matters because it leaves the affected party unable to check the decision against its supporting record.
Response position: Miss E and Mr J say these requests remain unanswered. Mr J reaffirmed that position on 13 September 2026. This concerns their ability to understand and challenge a financial order—not merely a missing form.
These questions bring together the published requests, the later final notice and the family’s account. They are not a newly sent enquiry from The Unanswered Record. Procedure reference: Practice Direction 44, paragraphs 9.5–9.6: statements of costs and filing/service.
A developing investigation
Further reporting to come.
This is the beginning of the costs strand, not the full account. Mr J says there are further events, correspondence and documents to add. We will expand the reporting as that material is provided and examined, tracing the costs decision, the requests for reasons and the response record.
Each substantive addition will be dated and linked from this case file. The court-costs strand remains separate from the BH68 plan and wayleave investigation, while forming part of the same wider case.
Documents, responses and corrections: theunansweredrecord@gmail.com.
See the correspondence alongside her review (opens Google Maps in a new tab)
Why we are publishing · The family’s account
More than two years.
Questions still requiring answers.
Miss E and Mr J say their dispute has continued for more than two years. They report repeatedly raising serious questions, including allegations of fraud, misleading evidence and wrongdoing involving individuals, companies and legal representatives. Their wider allegations also concern court officials and people holding public office.
Duration and wider allegations: Miss E and Mr J’s account, recorded 12 September 2026.
If substantiated, those allegations would matter beyond one dispute. The public interest is in exposing failures, correcting the record and protecting others—not preserving an institution’s reputation at the expense of the truth.
The cost of pursuing a legal case can put further challenges beyond a family’s reach. That is why a serious, document-based concern deserves a public hearing without requiring readers to accept it on trust.
No office places its holder beyond legitimate scrutiny. Public confidence is strengthened by examining serious concerns—not by leaving them unanswered.
One case. A developing public record.
The Unanswered Record is assembling and examining the case material, one strand at a time. The published draft begins with the BH68 plan, wayleave and email record. The wider allegations are the family’s account; they are not established findings from that first strand.
Further reporting will be released in stages as the relevant material is reviewed. Articles and updates will connect to the case, the parties’ questions and the supporting record. Video, interviews and other media are planned alongside the written reporting; they will link back to the same evidence and response record.
Each report will identify what is alleged, what its sources establish, what the relevant parties say and exactly which questions remain. Material answers and corrections will be made visible beside the points they address.
Begin with the record already examined
01 · Read the BH68 article ↗02 · Follow the questions by party ↗03 · Examine the supporting source notes ↗Supporting record
The source documents.
Seventeen distinct PDFs now support the reporting, including the linked email-verification record, formal notices and referral request. The index explains the role of each and links to an editorial source note. Original PDFs are not included in this draft.
Browse the document indexStay with the story
Follow the investigation
as the record develops.
This chapter does not close the case. 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. Following does not guarantee that every post appears in your feed.