The Unanswered Record · Party question pack
Questions for
Mark Hacking
Your April and May 2026 replies concern National Grid’s handling of the family’s requests. The 7 May reply promises a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence. The question asks where that response is and which records resolve the underlying points.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Compiled 12 September 2026
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.
BH68-07 · Proposed · not yet sent
Where is the promised substantive response?
On 7 May 2026 you promised a substantive response to the recent Shackson correspondence. Where is that response? Separately, which dated answer resolves the Skea email-authentication and BH68 agreement questions? Produce the answers and supporting records. If these points remain unanswered, why, what prevents an answer, and when will you provide one?
Question directed to: Mark Hacking / Geldards LLP · for National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Nottingham office
A promise of a substantive response gives the family a concrete commitment against which to ask what happened next. An acknowledgement leaves the underlying verification work unfinished. Accountability requires the promised answer, its supporting records or an explanation of what prevents it.
The recorded response The 10 March 2025 message records a referral. On 24 April 2026 Mark Hacking says he is instructed that earlier requests were dealt with and asks what further material is sought. On 7 May he acknowledges the Skea letter and promises a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence. No later substantive answer is included in the supplied export.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
This follow-up tests the 24 April 2026 statement that earlier requests were dealt with and the 7 May promise concerning Shackson correspondence against the replies and records. It separately asks about Skea authentication, without treating that as the express subject of the promise. Mr J reports on 12 September 2026 that no later substantive answer was received; later correspondence has not been independently checked. No sending date or deadline is recorded for this new consolidated question.
The correspondence contains real responses, but those pages do not identify an answer authenticating the disputed exchange or producing the particular BH68 supporting records. This is a proposed request for that identification, not a claim that Geldards has ignored this newly worded question.
Draft editorial follow-up based on replies through 7 May 2026 and Mr J’s 12 September update; no new request sent
Supporting source notes: G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3
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 · Mark Hacking
The issues. The record. The answer.
Questions / response concerns. The entries below state who raises each allegation or concern, the supporting sources and the response status.
BH68-C04 · Response concern
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.
- 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.
Professional affiliation & public office
Mark Hacking · Partner · Geldards LLP · Nottingham
Organisation: Geldards LLP.
Geldards Nottingham public office: Cubo Standard Court, Park Row, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG1 6GN, United Kingdom.
Geldards’ official biography places him in its Nottingham office.
Documented involvement
In the reproduced email dated 5 May 2026, Nick Shackson confirms that National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc instructed Geldards LLP. His email separately refers to correspondence with Mark Hacking of Geldards. The message concerns representation, rather than the substantive map questions. The further supplied correspondence includes Mark Hacking’s 24 April and 7 May 2026 replies: he says earlier requests were dealt with, asks for further particulars, acknowledges the forwarded Skea letter and promises a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence. Those replies do not themselves authenticate the disputed exchange or identify a BH68 agreement.
Source references: E, p. 3 · J, pp. 1–3.
Related reporting
Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan: the questions in the record.
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 desktheunansweredrecord@gmail.com