National Grid

The 2 February reply confirms sending the email and plan. It does not establish who drew the plan.

Personal-authorship question recorded in Document B, pp. 2–3; chased on 24 February.

The 10 February reply describes a general-area map, not a particular title. A direct identification of the apparatus intended by the earlier phrase is not present.

The specific-apparatus question is recorded on 13 February and chased on 24 February. The title enquiry began on 2 February; the formal letter of 6 May requests the basis for the wording. This question draws those requests together. The question about the outcome of the proposed March records check is additional editorial wording, not a claim that this exact follow-up has already been sent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 supplied printout shows the forwarding header. The October 2025 rebuttal and oral summary expressly allege a written admission of editing and challenge a later redaction explanation. Mr J says the explanation concerned private client information and followed the family’s challenge. The question seeks the dated explanation and a comparison of the versions. A separately reviewed 24 October 2025 email expressly rejects the tampering allegations as baseless and supplies further copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally. The question seeks the original-source and content comparison behind that explanation.

Based on the self-forwarding header in Document F, Miss E’s verification requests in Document G, the October 2025 submissions K and L, and Mr J’s account. No sending date or response deadline has been recorded for this editorial question. 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. Newly reviewed Annex E, the 27 October 2025 outgoing notice to Cornwell/Seldons and Annex J-2 particularise the earlier allegation. They are not a record of sending this new question.