Investigations in the public interestEvidence. Enquiry. Accountability.
People & organisations / Amelia Skea

Person · Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152

Amelia Skea

Named correspondent in the disputed April 2024 wayleave-payment exchange and addressee of the May 2026 letter.

Attributed allegation about the disputed wording · authentication and records questions

Portrait not verified

The Unanswered Record · Party question pack

Questions for
Amelia Skea

The reply attributed to you says “your wayleave”; the incoming message names BH67 and BH68. Mr J challenges whether those were the words actually exchanged and alleges possible knowing involvement in misleading wording or failure to correct wording falsely attributed to you. Did you receive that request and send that reply? Identify the underlying instrument for each pole, authenticate the originals and explain any discrepancy.

Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Compiled 12 September 2026

Attributed allegation and authentication questions · BH68-C02

The reply attributed to Amelia Skea says “your wayleave”, beneath a request naming BH67 and BH68. Mr J alleges possible knowing involvement by Ms Skea in misleading wording or failure to correct wording she knows was falsely attributed to her. He reports that neither pole’s agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family. The questions ask her and National Grid to authenticate the linked exchange and identify the instrument for each pole.

Miss E and Mr J · authenticity challenge; Mr J’s knowledge allegation dated 13 September 2026

Evidence, response and full allegation record ↓

This pack has not been sent by this publication. Earlier requests and the available replies are identified below. New executive and firm-review questions are proposed; no new response deadline has been set.

The draft must be publicly hosted before this link can be used outside your computer.

BH68-05 · Authentication not found in supplied record

Is the disputed email exchange authentic?

Did you send the 15 April 2024 message saying “Your wayleave will be paid annually in advance in September” in response to the displayed 9 April request naming BH67 and BH68? Was BH68 in the email National Grid actually received? Produce the retained request, reply, full headers and attachments. For each pole, identify the agreement or other instrument behind “your wayleave” and the record linked to reference 2624773. If any displayed wording is not what you received or sent, identify it, when you became aware of it and what correction or notification followed. Miss E’s verification requests began in February 2025: why do the supplied replies still contain no authentication answer? If you have answered, identify the dated reply. If you cannot verify the exchange, explain what prevents you, who is checking it and when an answer will be provided.

Question directed to: Amelia Skea · Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office · National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc

Why this matters · Authenticity

The reply can be read as confirming the request about two named poles. If the request was altered, or the reply concerned different records, the apparent confirmation could convey a materially different meaning. Authenticating both sides of the exchange and identifying the instrument for each pole tests that connection directly.

The recorded response The recorded 10 March 2025 reply refers the enquiry to Nigel Merrifield. The May 2026 Geldards reply acknowledges the forwarded letter and directs correspondence through the firm. Neither provides an authentication finding on the printed exchange.

Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding

The 26 February 2025 request asks NGED to verify the messages. Its embedded copy does not show its recipient header. The 7 March follow-up explicitly copies Amelia Skea; the 7 May 2026 letter and covering email address her directly. Mark Hacking later acknowledges the forwarded email and letter. This consolidated question, including the request for full headers, is editorial wording; no new sending by this publication is recorded. Revised on 13 September 2026 to connect the authentication request, Mr J’s account of court reliance, the requested agreement and the self-forwarded copy. The new wording has not been sent by this publication. The 13 September review adds the exact “your wayleave” wording, BH67/BH68 comparison and Mr J’s allegation about Ms Skea’s knowledge. Those expanded questions have not been sent by this publication.

Mr J reports that neither a BH68 nor a BH67 agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family. On 13 September 2026 he alleges possible knowing involvement by Ms Skea in misleading wording or failure to correct wording she knows was falsely attributed to her. The retained messages and agreement records are sought to test that allegation. The supplied referral and solicitor correspondence do not provide an authentication finding.

Documents reviewed through 7 May 2026; on 12 September 2026 Mr J reports no later substantive answer, not independently verified

Supporting source notes: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 2–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20

Full question record ↗Read the article behind this question ↗

BH68-06 · Supporting update records not supplied

What exactly was changed in the payment records?

Which agreement or other instrument did “your wayleave” refer to, for BH67 and for BH68? Identify the land, apparatus and recipient linked to reference 2624773. What payment records were updated, by whom and on what documents? Produce the archived plan and completion letter referred to in the April 2024 request and explain whether the stated £25 annual amount concerned one pole, both poles or different apparatus. How does that position relate to Miss E’s June 2024 BH68 agreement, its signed plan, 14-year term and one-off £2,000 payment provision?

Question directed to: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · concerning the payment-record update attributed to Amelia Skea · South West Wayleave Records, Bodmin

Why this matters · Documentary basis

An assertion that payment records were changed should be traceable to the documents and apparatus it concerns. Integrity requires explaining whether the records describe the same pole and rights, rather than treating an administrative payment entry as proof of an agreement or of the disputed boundary.

The recorded response The printed April response says records were updated for future wayleave payments. It does not identify the underlying agreement, include the referenced attachments or explain how BH68 relates to Miss E’s later executed agreement. The supplied 7 May solicitor’s reply addresses correspondence handling, not those records.

Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding

The formal letter to Amelia Skea asks what supported the record update, whether an executed BH68 agreement or supporting instrument exists, and what verification occurred. The covering copy names corporate legal and wayleaves recipients; the outgoing header alone does not prove receipt by each mailbox. Mark Hacking acknowledges the forwarded email and letter. The archived-attachments and June-agreement comparison draw these requests together; sending this expanded wording is not established. The 13 September wording adds the printed reference and a separate identification for each pole; no new sending is recorded.

The April 2024 printout predates the June agreement. Identify exactly what was updated, the documents supporting the change and how the later agreement relates to it. The supplied replies leave that comparison unresolved.

7 May 2026 formal request and acknowledged notification; on 12 September 2026 Mr J reports no later substantive clarification, not independently verified

Supporting source notes: F, pp. 1–2 · A, pp. 4–6 · G, pp. 3–5 · H, pp. 2–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1

Full question record ↗Read the article behind this question ↗

A response belongs beside the question

Answer by question number.

State what you accept or dispute. Identify the supporting document and the relevant passage. If a record cannot be provided, explain why and what can be verified instead. Material answers and corrections will be considered and reflected alongside the relevant question.

Send your response to theunansweredrecord@gmail.com. This opens an email draft; it does not submit or send anything automatically. Please avoid sending unredacted sensitive personal information.

Prepare a numbered response ↗

Readers with relevant evidence or corrections should contact the editorial desk. Please do not organise repeated messages to individual employees.

Allegations & Questions · Amelia Skea

The issues. The record. The answer.

Named in an allegation. The entries below state who raises each allegation or concern, the supporting sources and the response status.

BH68-C02 · Attributed allegation and authentication questions

“Your wayleave”: whose words, and which agreements?

Miss E and Mr J · authenticity challenge; Mr J’s knowledge allegation dated 13 September 2026

The reply attributed to Amelia Skea says “your wayleave”, beneath a request naming BH67 and BH68. Mr J alleges possible knowing involvement by Ms Skea in misleading wording or failure to correct wording she knows was falsely attributed to her. He reports that neither pole’s agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family. The questions ask her and National Grid to authenticate the linked exchange and identify the instrument for each pole.

The supporting record
Miss E’s request is dated 26 February 2025. Her 7 March follow-up explicitly copies Ms Skea. Angela Caddy’s 10 March reply refers the enquiry to Nigel Merrifield. The family subsequently reported visiting Bodmin and sent the May 2026 letter before action.

F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1

The recorded response
The supplied copies contain a referral and solicitor’s acknowledgement, but no direct authentication by Ms Skea. Mr J reports that the substantive authentication and agreement questions remain unanswered as of 12 September 2026.
The answer still sought
Was BH68 in the incoming message? Did Ms Skea send “your wayleave” in reply? Identify the agreement for each pole, the record behind reference 2624773 and any correction of false or changed wording. State who checked the referral and where its outcome is recorded.
Why it matters
A company should be able to explain whether it stands behind correspondence bearing its name and which records support it.
Was it put to this party?
Ms Skea is visibly copied on 7 March 2025 and directly addressed in the 7 May 2026 covering email. The embedded February request does not show its recipient header. The wording here summarises and develops those requests; no new publication enquiry has been sent.
Read the originating article ↗BH68-05BH68-06
Related issues · role and context (4)

BH68-C06 · Related issue · context, not an allegation against this party

National Grid’s standards. Who will account for this record?

The Unanswered Record · executive review proposed 18 September 2026

The publication asks Zoë Yujnovich, as current Chief Executive of National Grid plc, to commission a review of the operating company’s BH68 record integrity, response handling and compliance with applicable standards. This is a proposed oversight request, not an allegation that she participated in or already knew of the disputed events.

The supporting record
The record includes Miss E’s signed June 2024 agreement, the attributed exchange, the April 2025 plan, February–March 2025 authentication requests and later formal letters and solicitor replies. The company’s published policies provide a benchmark whose case-specific and historical application must be identified.

A, pp. 4–6 · G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, official policies and leadership

The recorded response
Referrals and solicitor replies are recorded. The family reports that the substantive authentication and agreement questions remain unresolved. This new executive pack has not been sent and has no recorded executive response.
The answer still sought
Identify the standards. Appoint the reviewer. Authenticate the records. Account for the handling. Give a dated written outcome.
Why it matters
The test is whether the company can connect its public standards to a transparent review of the particular records affecting a wayleave-holder.
Was it put to this party?
Prepared for Zoë Yujnovich on 18 September 2026; not sent by this publication. No receipt, knowledge of the case or missed deadline is attributed to her. This profile is linked for the role explained above; the issue is not automatically attributed to every person or company mentioned.
Read the originating article ↗BH68-12BH68-13BH68-14BH68-15BH68-16BH68-17

BH68-A03 · Related issue · context, not an allegation against this party

What changed before the emails reached court?

Miss E and Mr J · Annex E and October 2025 notices; primary court record reviewed 18 September 2026

The family alleges that Luke Cornwell inserted BH68 into correspondence originally concerning BH67 and used it with Mr Mayo to support the boundary claim. Mr J alleges undisclosed editing with an explanation only after challenge. The 27 October 2025 email expressly addresses both Cornwell and Seldons LLP and demands preservation of originals and metadata.

The supporting record
The self-forwarded chain appears in MJM2 pages 20–25, relied on at paragraph 42 of the second amended claim. The pleading, statement of truth and Cornwell’s signature dated 23 September 2025 are in the reviewed trial bundle. No redaction explanation appears in those inspected pages or the exhibit cover. The family’s submissions refer to a written explanation; its original remains to be located.

F, p. 1 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · P, pp. 1–3 · T, receipt, denial, outcomes and T7: redaction record

The recorded response
Mr J recalls a privilege/redaction explanation in court, possibly before Judge Paul Mitchell at a strike-out hearing, and says he objected; the hearing, date and words remain unconfirmed. Separately, Cornwell’s 24 October 2025 email denies tampering and supplies further copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally. Seldons’ 28 October letter acknowledges the formal notice and attachments and reserves the firm’s position. A native-message comparison and documented review outcome remain sought.
The answer still sought
Identify each change, the written notice and withholding grounds under CPR 31.19, and the preserved original under PD 31B paragraph 35. Identify the first explanation, the hearing record and the checks supporting paragraph 42. What did Seldons do after the objection and notice?
Why it matters
Readers must be able to distinguish an original message from an edited disclosure copy and check whether its meaning was preserved.
Was it put to this party?
Document N is the 27 October 2025 outgoing email addressed to Cornwell and Seldons with Annex E, J-1 and J-2 listed. A separate letter of 28 October acknowledges receipt of the correspondence and attachments. The Outlook Annex E attachment is two pages, not the later expanded 24-page version updated 6 February 2026. BH68-04, BH68-08 and BH68-10 remain proposed questions not sent by this publication. This profile is linked for the role explained above; the issue is not automatically attributed to every person or company mentioned.
Read the originating article ↗BH68-04BH68-08BH68-10

BH68-C04 · Related issue · context, not an allegation against this party

Where is the promised substantive response?

Documented commitment · later non-response reported by Mr J

On 7 May 2026, Mark Hacking of Geldards LLP promised a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence. Mr J reports that the substantive answers are still awaited as of 12 September 2026.

The supporting record
The April reply states that previous requests had been dealt with and asks for further particulars. The May reply acknowledges the forwarded Skea letter, directs correspondence through the firm and promises a response concerning Mr Shackson.

J, pp. 1–3 · G, pp. 1–5

The recorded response
Those replies are recorded. They do not themselves authenticate the disputed exchange or explain which agreement supports the claimed BH68 position. The reported position after May is the family’s account.
The answer still sought
Identify the dated answers said to have been given. Complete the promised response or explain what prevents it and who is responsible.
Why it matters
A response must address the question and identify its supporting record. Acknowledgement and referral are distinct from substantive resolution.
Was it put to this party?
The 7 May promise concerns Shackson correspondence, not an express promise to authenticate Skea’s email. BH68-07 is a proposed follow-up; no sending date or deadline is recorded for that new wording. This profile is linked for the role explained above; the issue is not automatically attributed to every person or company mentioned.
Read the originating article ↗BH68-07

BH68-C05 · Related issue · context, not an allegation against this party

A referral is not the outcome. Who owns the answer?

Miss E and Mr J · handling concern; proposed executive review

The family challenges National Grid’s handling of repeated requests to verify correspondence and identify the agreement supporting the claimed BH68 position. Miss E’s requests were followed by a referral, office visits and solicitor correspondence. Mr J says the substantive verification answers remain outstanding.

The supporting record
The 26 February 2025 request and 7 March follow-up set out the questions. Angela Caddy’s 10 March message refers the enquiry to Nigel Merrifield. The May 2026 letters renew the challenge. Geldards’ correspondence refers to the April office visits and records its own replies.

G, pp. 1–5 · D, pp. 1–3 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3

The recorded response
A referral and solicitor’s acknowledgements are documented. The April solicitor reply says previous requests were dealt with; the family disputes that. No written authentication finding or complete agreement comparison is identified in the supplied replies. Mr J reports the later position as at 12 September 2026.
The answer still sought
Name the responsible senior officer. Produce the checks and their outcome. Explain any unresolved delay. Give a date for the document-supported answer.
Why it matters
An agreement holder should be able to follow a serious concern from receipt to responsibility, investigation and a reasoned outcome. Passing the enquiry on does not identify what was checked or resolved.
Was it put to this party?
Historical requests and replies are recorded in the source notes. BH68-09 is a new question for the company’s executive office; it has not been sent and no executive deadline or response is recorded. This profile is linked for the role explained above; the issue is not automatically attributed to every person or company mentioned.
Read the originating article ↗BH68-03BH68-05BH68-06BH68-09
Browse allegations & questions by party ↗All questions connected to this party ↗

Professional affiliation & public office

Amelia Skea · National Grid · Wayleave Services · Bodmin Office (attributed April 2024 signature)

Organisation: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.

South West Wayleave Records public office: Lostwithiel Road, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL31 1DE, United Kingdom.

The signature in the attributed April 2024 message reads “Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office” (Document F, p. 1). The address below is the company’s published departmental office, not independent confirmation of her present work location.

Public business sources checked 12 September 2026: National Grid office directory ↗.

Documented involvement

The printout attributes the “your wayleave” reply to Amelia Skea, Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office. Miss E’s correspondence asks her to authenticate that reply, the incoming message naming BH67 and BH68, and the underlying agreements. Mr J’s additional allegation about possible knowing involvement in misleading wording or failure to correct falsely attributed wording is dated 13 September 2026. The profile links that allegation to the specific authentication and records questions.

Source references: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 2–4 · H, pp. 1–4 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20.

Also identified as: Ms Skea

Related reporting

Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan: the questions in the record.

Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152: the wider case file.

This entry records an evidenced connection. It does not state that the person or organisation committed wrongdoing.

A place for the answer

Have something to add?

National Grid, Mr Shackson, Ms Skea, Mr Mayo, Seldons Solicitors, Geldards LLP, or any other party mentioned: if you have information, documents, a correction or a response, please contact us. Identify the article and question you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the record.

Contact the editorial desk

theunansweredrecord@gmail.com