No agreements supplied. What supported the inference?
Venn recorded that the requested utility agreements were not supplied, yet used asserted wayleave benefits and rent in his boundary reasoning. Miss E and Mr J allege that he participated in a misleading expert process intended to support Mayo’s claim over disputed land. The report, instructions and R4/R5 challenges are set out together for scrutiny.
Read the contrast in the report → · Read all nine R4/R5 issues →
The public complaint and Part 35 tests
Review, response and follow-up question → · The duties tested against the report → · The instruction restriction and court’s safeguards →
The response record
The report and July 2025 answers explain Venn’s opinion, inspection and access limits. The 23 May order authorised claimant-only instruction. The present investigation seeks the complete document-supply trail and a specific response to the January objections; it does not record a finding that Venn fabricated evidence.
Start with VENN-01
Your report §4.1.2 records that the requested Openreach and Western Power agreements were not provided. Section 5.4.5 nevertheless uses asserted wayleave benefits and rent receipts to support the boundary position. Identify the instrument, land, apparatus and verified fact supporting each step of that inference. Distinguish an invoice, an apparatus map and a contractual right.
Her refusal was put in writing.
Compare the 13 July objection, Venn’s exact email and the October costs argument → · The question about attribution and reliance →