The Unanswered Record · Party question pack
Questions for
Zoë Yujnovich
For Zoë Yujnovich, Chief Executive of National Grid plc. These six questions ask you to commission a review of NGED South West’s BH68 records, staff and solicitor handling, and compliance with applicable standards. They are prepared for your present executive oversight, not an allegation of your involvement in the earlier events. The operating company named in Miss E’s agreement is identified separately. This pack has not yet been sent.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Compiled 18 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.
BH68-12 · Proposed · not yet sent
Which standards governed this handling?
Which employee-conduct, customer-communication, wayleave-record, complaint and document-integrity policies applied to the identified BH68 events during 2024–2026? Provide the policy titles, effective dates and relevant provisions, identifying the responsible National Grid legal entity. Which requirements applied to external solicitors, and through what instruction or contractual arrangement? If a document cannot be shared in full, provide the applicable provisions and explain the restriction.
Question directed to: Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
A company’s public commitments should lead to identifiable standards against which particular conduct can be reviewed—not a general assurance that leaves the substance unchecked.
The recorded response The March 2026 group Code of Ethics and NGED’s public customer-service and complaints pages provide a starting point. The historical policy versions, case-specific procedure and external-counsel requirements are not established by those pages. No executive answer to this new question has been sought.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Prepared on 18 September 2026. This executive question has not been sent by The Unanswered Record; no receipt or response deadline is recorded. Earlier requests to staff and solicitors are identified separately. Zoë Yujnovich is approached for present executive oversight, not described as having authorised the earlier handling.
Identify the actual standard, version and responsible entity before assessing compliance. Website terms of use are not a substitute for the rules governing staff and case handling.
Executive-review question prepared 18 September 2026 · not yet sent
Supporting source notes: S, published standards and scope · A, pp. 4–6 · G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3
BH68-13 · Proposed · not yet sent
Who will own the review—and obtain the records?
Will you appoint a reviewer not previously involved in the disputed handling, with authority to obtain the relevant records and require corrections? Name the responsible office, provide a case reference and a secure route for the indexed correspondence and letters before action. Confirm preservation of original emails, headers, attachments, plans and version histories. Which route will examine authenticity and staff conduct if the wayleave-rights dispute is being handled through legal proceedings?
Question directed to: Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
A concern passed between staff, departments and solicitors needs an identifiable owner able to reach the underlying records and give a reasoned outcome.
The recorded response NGED’s complaints page directs contractual or legal matters such as wayleave disputes to the appropriate legal process rather than alternative dispute resolution. The new request asks how record-integrity and conduct concerns will be examined within or alongside the applicable route. No executive referral or review has yet been arranged through this publication.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Prepared on 18 September 2026. This executive question has not been sent by The Unanswered Record; no receipt or response deadline is recorded. Earlier requests to staff and solicitors are identified separately. Zoë Yujnovich is approached for present executive oversight, not described as having authorised the earlier handling.
Confirm a responsible reviewer, remit, secure delivery channel and preservation arrangements. The proposed internal review is not represented as an externally independent inquiry.
Executive-review question prepared 18 September 2026 · not yet sent
Supporting source notes: S, ethics and wayleave-complaint scope · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3
BH68-14 · Proposed · not yet sent
Does National Grid stand behind this documentary record?
Will the review authenticate the complete BH67/BH68 exchange attributed to Amelia Skea against National Grid’s originals, including headers and attachments, and explain any difference from the self-forwarded copy? Identify the instrument, parties, land and apparatus supporting “your wayleave” for each pole, and reconcile that position with Miss E’s signed June 2024 BH68 agreement. What record supported the April 2025 plan’s “on your title” wording, given Mr Shackson’s later general-area explanation?
Question directed to: Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
The agreement, email and plan must be connected by records that can be checked. An executive assurance cannot replace authentication of the very material in dispute.
The recorded response The supplied record contains Miss E’s agreement, the attributed exchange and Mr Shackson’s explanations. He states that existing wayleaves transferred and later describes a general-area map. The family challenges the documentary basis and says the requested authentication and agreement comparison remain outstanding. No executive determination has been requested through this new question.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Prepared on 18 September 2026. This executive question has not been sent by The Unanswered Record; no receipt or response deadline is recorded. Earlier requests to staff and solicitors are identified separately. Zoë Yujnovich is approached for present executive oversight, not described as having authorised the earlier handling.
Provide a source-backed comparison: authentic company message, underlying instrument, relevant pole and land, and the purpose and limits of the plan. Identify any correction rather than relying on the disputed wording to verify itself.
Executive-review question prepared 18 September 2026 · not yet sent
Supporting source notes: A, pp. 4–6 · B, pp. 2–8 · C, p. 2 · F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 1–5 · S, record-integrity standards
BH68-15 · Proposed · not yet sent
Replies were sent. Where are the substantive answers?
Which substantive authentication and agreement issues raised in the documented February–March 2025 correspondence remain unresolved, and why? For each point, identify the request, responsible person, checks made and dated answer with its supporting document. Account for the 10 March referral, the May 2026 letters before action and the 7 May promise of a substantive response concerning Mr Shackson. If the company considers the questions answered, show exactly where—not merely that correspondence took place.
Question directed to: Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
The material issue is whether a person can verify the record affecting their rights. A referral, acknowledgement or change of correspondent does not itself identify the agreement or authenticate an email.
The recorded response The record includes Angela Caddy’s referral and Mark Hacking’s replies: he says earlier requests were dealt with, seeks further particulars and later promises a substantive response concerning Shackson correspondence. Mr J reports that the underlying authentication and agreement questions remain unresolved. Those replies must be distinguished from a document-supported resolution.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Prepared on 18 September 2026. This executive question has not been sent by The Unanswered Record; no receipt or response deadline is recorded. Earlier requests to staff and solicitors are identified separately. Zoë Yujnovich is approached for present executive oversight, not described as having authorised the earlier handling.
Produce a question-by-question response schedule and explain any unresolved delay. The documented authentication request dates from 26 February 2025, with Ms Skea visibly copied on 7 March; this is not described as two years without any reply.
Executive-review question prepared 18 September 2026 · not yet sent
Supporting source notes: G, pp. 1–5 · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, customer-service and complaints standards
BH68-16 · Proposed · not yet sent
Who checked the staff and solicitor handling?
Who held responsibility for checking Amelia Skea’s and Nick Shackson’s handling of the disputed records and the ensuing requests? Identify the non-privileged scope of Geldards LLP’s role, who retained complaint ownership after referral to the firm, and what process ensured the factual questions were investigated and answered. If information is withheld, identify the category and reason, and what non-privileged factual outcome can still be provided.
Question directed to: Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Use of external advisers should leave the company able to explain who owns a concern and which factual checks underpin its response.
The recorded response The representation correspondence identifies Geldards LLP and Mark Hacking, and directs contact through the firm. The public policies do not establish the firm’s particular instructions or a completed factual review. This question seeks accountability and the review outcome, not disclosure of privileged legal advice.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Prepared on 18 September 2026. This executive question has not been sent by The Unanswered Record; no receipt or response deadline is recorded. Earlier requests to staff and solicitors are identified separately. Zoë Yujnovich is approached for present executive oversight, not described as having authorised the earlier handling.
Identify responsibility, the review undertaken and the factual position the company stands behind. Do not treat a referral to legal representatives as a substitute for identifying how the record-integrity concern is addressed.
Executive-review question prepared 18 September 2026 · not yet sent
Supporting source notes: D, pp. 1–5 · E, p. 3 · G, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, policy applicability
BH68-17 · Proposed · not yet sent
What will the company put on the record—and by when?
Will you provide a dated written outcome against each question, setting out the records examined, applicable standards and findings, and identifying any corrections required? Explain the relevant agreement terms, notice provisions, contractual protections and review or escalation routes for Miss E. Give a realistic completion date and arrangements for progress updates. Where a point cannot be resolved, identify the missing record and the steps being taken to obtain it.
Question directed to: Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
A review has value when the affected person can understand what was checked, what was concluded and what will change. The result should answer the material questions, not simply close the correspondence.
The recorded response There is no commissioned executive review or executive response to this new pack. The family seeks a reasoned, source-backed outcome. The scope of any indemnity or other protection must be established from the applicable agreement rather than assumed.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Prepared on 18 September 2026. This executive question has not been sent by The Unanswered Record; no receipt or response deadline is recorded. Earlier requests to staff and solicitors are identified separately. Zoë Yujnovich is approached for present executive oversight, not described as having authorised the earlier handling.
The response sought is a dated outcome that can be compared with the source material, with an explanation of unresolved points and any action required. A response deadline will be recorded only after a request is actually sent.
Executive-review question prepared 18 September 2026 · not yet sent
Supporting source notes: A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, executive and company standards
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 · Zoë Yujnovich
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-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.
Documented involvement
National Grid’s official leadership biography identifies Zoë Yujnovich as its Chief Executive, appointed in 2025. She is named here in her current executive capacity, to commission a review of the operating company’s handling. This does not attribute the earlier events or knowledge of the dispute to her. The counterparty in Miss E’s signed agreement is National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc, a distinct company from the listed parent.
Source references: S, official leadership and policy sources.
Related reporting
BH68: the records, the response gap and the executive-review questions
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