Related reporting · Annex E
The wider allegation and response record.
Open this party’s Annex E questions → · Read the overview, replies and later outcomes →
The Unanswered Record · Party question pack
Questions for
National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc
For the Chief Executive’s Office and the senior officer responsible for wayleave records. Miss E holds a signed 2024 agreement identifying BH68. The disputed correspondence concerns Mr Mayo’s claimed position in relation to that apparatus. The family asks National Grid to authenticate its correspondence, identify the underlying rights and explain why its verification requests have not produced the answers it seeks.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Compiled 12 September 2026
Attributed allegation · BH68-A01
Miss E and Mr J allege that the April 2025 plan was used to create a false impression that Mr Mayo held wayleave rights concerning BH68, and to mislead the court. They direct the allegation to Mr Mayo and, over the supply and description of the plan, to Nick Shackson and National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
Miss E and Mr J · allegation recorded in the reporting
Evidence, response and full allegation record ↓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.
BH68-03 · Clarification not found in supplied record
Which wayleaves cover BH68?
What agreement or other basis supports the claimed BH68 wayleave rights connected with Mr Mayo? Produce the agreement, its date, parties and plan. Identify the land and apparatus covered. If an older agreement is relied upon, what establishes its continued application after any ownership change or subdivision, and how does it relate to Miss E’s signed 2024 agreement?
Question directed to: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · via Geldards LLP, the instructed firm, and Mark Hacking, its named contact
Miss E’s signed agreement provides a specific record against which the claimed BH68 rights can be compared. A transfer assertion should identify the relevant agreement or other basis, the land and apparatus, and why an older arrangement is said still to apply. Without those records, the family cannot test the competing claim. Integrity requires that comparison to be possible.
The recorded response The 2 February reply says existing wayleaves transferred to Mr Mayo. The supplied replies do not identify the individual agreements or establish whether one covers BH68. Mark Hacking’s 7 May reply promises a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence but does not identify those agreements.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
The family’s letter before action was addressed to Nick Shackson (Document D, pp. 4–5). This register groups the question with the company whose agreements are at issue. The additional 7 May 2026 Geldards reply acknowledges reviewing recent emails and letters addressed to Nick Shackson, without identifying each version. It also confirms receipt of the forwarded Skea letter. No new request by this publication is recorded as sent. The supplied copy of the 6 May covering email lists a National Grid legal mailbox in BCC; that records an intended copied recipient, not proof of transmission, delivery or receipt (Document E, p. 1). The comparison with Miss E’s agreement, PCC’s earlier letter and the alleged subdivision is expanded editorial wording informed by Mr J’s additional account of 12 September 2026. Sending those additional questions is not established. Tom Watson is linked as the public professional match to the first-named Tom in the family’s office account; he is not a recorded recipient of this question. The basis and limits of that identification are explained in his profile.
Mr Shackson’s 2 February reply states that existing wayleaves transferred. The supplied replies do not identify the individual agreements or establish whether one covers BH68. The later 5 May reply confirms instruction of Geldards LLP and separately names Mark Hacking as a contact, not as the author of the original statement.
Related requests and replies supplied through 7 May 2026; later substantive clarification not established
Supporting source notes: A, pp. 1, 4–6 · B, pp. 5–7 · D, pp. 3–5 · E, p. 3 · J, pp. 1–3
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
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
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
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
BH68-09 · Proposed · not yet sent
Who at National Grid will take responsibility for the answers?
Is this handling of a wayleave-holder’s verification requests consistent with National Grid’s standards? Identify who took responsibility after the February and March 2025 requests, the referral and the April 2026 office visits. Who checked the disputed emails and agreement records, what did they conclude, and where is the written outcome? Will a senior officer review BH68-03, BH68-05 and BH68-06, explain any unresolved delay and give a date for a document-supported response?
Question directed to: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Chief Executive’s Office / executive review
Responsibility should remain traceable when a wayleave-holder’s concern passes between departments and external solicitors. Integrity requires a checkable outcome: who investigated, which records they examined and what answer the company stands behind.
The recorded response Angela Caddy’s 10 March 2025 message refers the enquiry to Nigel Merrifield. Mark Hacking later states that previous requests had been dealt with, asks for further particulars and promises a substantive response concerning Shackson correspondence. Those replies do not supply the authentication finding or agreement comparison requested here. No executive response to this new question has been sought.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Prepared for executive review on 12 September 2026. The underlying family requests, referral and later solicitor correspondence are documented. The office findings are reported by the family; the solicitor correspondence also refers to the visits. This new executive question has not been sent. No executive recipient’s receipt, response or deadline is recorded.
Identify a responsible senior officer, the checks performed, their written outcome and the route to completing any unresolved work. Mr J reports that the substantive verification answers remain outstanding; this register does not mark the new executive question as overdue.
Proposed executive-review question · 12 September 2026 · not sent
Supporting source notes: G, pp. 1–5 · D, pp. 1–3 · H, pp. 1–3 · 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 · National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc
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-C06 · Proposed executive-oversight questions
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.
BH68-A01 · Attributed allegation
The plan and the claimed rights
Miss E and Mr J · allegation recorded in the reporting
Miss E and Mr J allege that the April 2025 plan was used to create a false impression that Mr Mayo held wayleave rights concerning BH68, and to mislead the court. They direct the allegation to Mr Mayo and, over the supply and description of the plan, to Nick Shackson and National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
- The supporting record
- The linked sources include Miss E’s signed agreement, the April plan and Mr Shackson’s replies. The April email uses “on your title”; the February reply describes a general area, “not any particular title”. The plan already carries an accuracy disclaimer. The question is what records justified the title wording and the claimed BH68 rights.
- The recorded response
- Mr Shackson confirmed sending the plan, described it as a general-area map and asserted that existing wayleaves transferred to Mr Mayo. The questions ask which instrument, apparatus and land support that position.
- The answer still sought
- Identify the agreement. Identify the land and apparatus. Explain what the plan was intended to establish.
- Why it matters
- A claim about a particular pole and property must be traceable to the records that actually support it.
- Was it put to this party?
- The related questions to Mr Shackson and the 6 May 2026 letter before action are recorded. The proposed question about court use has not been sent by this publication; delivery to every party linked here is not established.
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.
BH68-C05 · Corporate handling concern
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.
- 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.
Professional affiliation & public office
National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Wayleave Records · Bodmin
South West Wayleave Records public office: Lostwithiel Road, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL31 1DE, United Kingdom.
Documented involvement
The executed agreement identifies National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc. This is the agreement counterparty recorded in Document A.
Source references: A, p. 4 · E, pp. 1–3 · F, pp. 1–2 · J, pp. 1–3.
Linked professional
Tom Watson · Estates and Wayleaves Specialist · Bodmin, Cornwall. His profile identifies the public sources connecting him to National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc and separately explains the link to the family’s account.
Executive escalation
Six further questions have been prepared for Zoë Yujnovich, Chief Executive of National Grid plc, concerning the applicable standards, an accountable review and a dated outcome. This pack has not yet been sent.
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