The Unanswered Record · Party question pack
Questions for
Nick Shackson
You supplied the April 2025 plan and replied about the wayleave records. The questions concern its preparation, the phrase “on your title”, the later general-area explanation and the agreement supporting the claimed BH68 rights.
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 ↓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.
BH68-01 · No direct answer in supplied record
Who prepared the plan?
Did you personally draw the plan sent to Mr Mayo on 28 April 2025? If not, who prepared it?
Question directed to: Nick Shackson · Estates Specialist · National Grid
A plan should be traceable to its author and source material. That allows its reliability and limitations to be checked. Confirming who sent it does not establish who prepared it: integrity requires that distinction to remain clear.
The recorded response The 2 February reply confirms sending the email and plan. It does not establish who drew the plan.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Personal-authorship question recorded in Document B, pp. 2–3; chased on 24 February.
Miss E asked about personal authorship on 13 February 2026. The earlier reply confirms sending the plan, which is a different point. No direct answer to the later authorship question appears in the supplied bundle.
Related material reviewed through 7 May 2026; no later direct answer established
Supporting source notes: B, pp. 2–3
BH68-02 · No direct answer in supplied record
Which apparatus—and which title?
Which apparatus and which title did “the apparatus on your title” refer to? What supported that wording, and how does it relate to your later description, “not any particular title”? Did you carry out the Bodmin records check you proposed on 13 March 2025 before sending the April plan? If so, what did it establish? Was this intended as the plan accompanying a particular wayleave agreement? What could it establish about BH68, and what could it not establish? Identify any agreement to which it was attached.
Question directed to: Nick Shackson · Estates Specialist · National Grid
A general apparatus map and a statement about a particular title do not necessarily establish the same thing. Integrity requires the wording to match what the underlying records can support, so those relying on it understand its limits.
The recorded response 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.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
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 13 February request asked which apparatus the phrase meant. The 24 February follow-up says this remained unanswered. The February reply explains that the map displayed a general area; the available copies contain no direct answer identifying the apparatus intended by the earlier wording.
Related material reviewed through 7 May 2026; no later direct answer established
Supporting source notes: C, p. 2 · B, pp. 1–5, 8 · D, pp. 4–5
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
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 · Nick Shackson
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-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.
Professional affiliation & public office
Nick Shackson · Estates Specialist · National Grid
Organisation: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
Professional role recorded in the case correspondence.
Documented involvement
His email signature gives his role as Estates Specialist. The supplied correspondence records his replies about the plan and wayleave records.
Source references: B, pp. 2–8 · C, p. 2 · E, p. 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