BH68-01No direct answer in supplied record
Did you personally draw the plan sent to Mr Mayo on 28 April 2025? If not, who prepared it?
Why this matters Traceability
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.
Related request in record 13 February 2026
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
Documents: B, pp. 2–3
BH68-02No direct answer in supplied record
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.
Why this matters Precision
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.
Related request in record 13 February 2026
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
Documents: C, p. 2 · B, pp. 1–5, 8 · D, pp. 4–5
BH68-03Clarification not found in supplied record
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?
Why this matters Verifiability
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.
Related request in record 6 May 2026
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
Documents: A, pp. 1, 4–6 · B, pp. 5–7 · D, pp. 3–5 · E, p. 3 · J, pp. 1–3
BH68-06Supporting update records not supplied
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?
Why this matters Documentary basis
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.
Related request in record 7 May 2026
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
Documents: F, pp. 1–2 · A, pp. 4–6 · G, pp. 3–5 · H, pp. 2–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1
BH68-09Proposed · not yet sent
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?
Why this matters Corporate responsibility
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.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
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.
Documents: G, pp. 1–5 · D, pp. 1–3 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3
BH68-04Proposed · not yet sent
Mr J says the April 2025 plan was introduced late in the proceedings and relied upon in court to support Mr Mayo’s claimed BH68 rights. Why was it introduced at that stage, and what exactly was it presented as proving? Given Mr Shackson’s later description of a general-area map, “not any particular title”, what justified relying on it for that purpose? Identify the document and the assertion it supported. Where is the executed BH68 wayleave agreement in Mr Mayo’s name and its accompanying plan that the family says it repeatedly requested? If your position rests on an older agreement or another instrument, identify it and explain how it applies to the relevant land and BH68. Identify the accompanying statement of truth, its signatory and the precise assertions it verified, including which email version was exhibited.
Why this matters Fair presentation
On Mr J’s account, the plan was relied upon in court despite not being suitable as a wayleave-agreement plan. The integrity issue is the gap between what a document was presented as proving and what it could support. Producing the filing, the agreement and the explanation for the late introduction would allow that gap to be tested. A map’s appearance cannot supply the missing terms, parties or scope of an agreement.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
Mr Shackson’s 10 February 2026 explanation describes a general-area map, “not any particular title”, and says it was not produced through registered chartered-surveyor survey work. This does not answer why it was reportedly introduced and relied upon in court, or identify the executed agreement requested by the family.
Updated 13 September 2026 from Mr J’s account and the plan correspondence. Mr J says the disputed emails were put before the court in material supported by a statement of truth. The October 2025 submissions now reviewed also make that allegation. The question addresses the reported late introduction of the plan, court reliance and supporting agreement. It has not been sent by this publication.
Documents: C, pp. 1–2 · B, pp. 2–7 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, p. 7 · L, pp. 2, 5
BH68-08Proposed · not yet sent
The 31 January 2025 header names you as both sender and recipient: why did you self-forward the exchange attributed to Amelia Skea and Mr Mayo? The family’s Annex E specifically alleges insertion of BH68 into correspondence originally about BH67. Was the phrase “The pole numbers are BH67 and BH68” present in the message received from your source? Produce that message and the native exchange, including attachments, and compare them with the self-forwarded and court-filed versions. Identify every addition, removal or change, who made it and when. If you removed material on privilege grounds, identify the dated written notice or disclosure-list entry under CPR 31.19, its recipients and the grounds for withholding. Where is the unaltered original preserved under PD 31B paragraph 35? If no notice exists, explain why and identify any relevant direction. Paragraph 42 of the second amended claim relies on MJM2 pages 20–25: what checks supported that verified assertion? Identify the first redaction explanation and any hearing record addressing Mr J’s reported objection. Mr J says the emails were relied upon while the requested agreement and Ms Skea’s authentication remained outstanding: what checks supported that reliance, and which agreement supported the claimed BH68 rights? Provide the dated explanation and version comparison with appropriate protection for genuinely confidential information.
Why this matters Document provenance
The concern is not self-forwarding in isolation. It is whether a disputed copy carried the weight of an agreement that the family says was never produced, without a checkable confirmation from the attributed sender. The integrity test connects provenance, meaning and reliance: which words were actually sent, what changed, what verified them and what justified the use made of them in court?
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
Documents: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 3–5 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · T, recorded 24 October replies and T7: paragraph 42, MJM2 and redaction rules
BH68-05Authentication not found in supplied record
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.
Why this matters Authenticity
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.
Related request in record 7 March 2025; renewed 7 May 2026
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
Documents: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 2–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20
BH68-10Proposed · not yet sent
Seldons’ letter of 28 October 2025 acknowledges the 27 October correspondence and attachments and reserves the firm’s position. What action followed that notice? Who was responsible, which records were preserved and where is the substantive review outcome? Cornwell had rejected the tampering allegations on 24 October and supplied copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally: what comparison established that their content matched the originals? Will a partner identify the received, self-forwarded and court-filed versions, each change, the written withholding notice and grounds under CPR 31.19, and the preserved original under PD 31B paragraph 35? Who checked the version relied on in paragraph 42 of the amended claim? Identify the first redaction explanation and any response to the reported objection in court. Was verification sought directly from Amelia Skea or National Grid? Identify the supporting record and any correction required.
Why this matters Evidence stewardship
A firm-level answer should explain how evidence bearing its solicitor’s name was handled and checked. The integrity test is whether the disclosed copy preserved the original meaning and made its changes traceable, including the action taken if a problem is found.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
The 28 October letter acknowledges receipt and reserves the firm’s position entirely on the content. The 24 October reply had expressly denied tampering and described replacement copies delivered personally by Mr Mayo. Those responses are recorded; they do not themselves supply the native-message comparison or a documented firm-level review outcome.
Updated 18 September 2026 after reading the sent notice and the 28 October 2025 acknowledgement in Outlook, and the saved 24 October replies. Receipt of the historical notice and attachments is recorded. This expanded publication question has not been sent and is not marked overdue.
Documents: F, pp. 1–2 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · T, notice, acknowledgement, earlier denial and T7: primary court record
COSTS-01Unresolved according to the family
What N260 or equivalent signed costs statement was before you when costs were assessed following the 10 March 2025 hearing? Identify the document, its date and where it is held, and provide the available copy through the court. If no such statement was available, what other material supported the assessment and why did the court proceed on that basis?
Why this matters A traceable exercise of power
A financial order must be capable of explanation by reference to the material and reasoning used. The central issue is the basis of the assessment, not simply whether a document carries a particular form number.
Related request in record 29 April 2026 · signed final notice
What the supplied reply addresses
The reviewed final notice records the author’s position that no N260 or adequate explanation had been supplied. No substantive reply resolving these points has been provided to this publication. Mr J reports that the requests remain unresolved.
The supplied signed final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes repeated requests exceeding one year. Mr J reports that these remain unanswered as of 15 September 2026. This page restates and specifies those requests; it is not a newly delivered enquiry from The Unanswered Record. The seven-day period in the letter was requested by its author, not imposed by this publication or identified as a court direction.
Documents: R, pp. 1–2
COSTS-02Unresolved according to the family
Identify when and how the costs statement was filed with the court and served on Miss E. Produce the filing and service record. If it was not filed or served within the applicable time, how was that addressed, and what opportunity was Miss E given to examine and challenge the costs sought? Mr J reports that Mr Mayo stated under oath that the N260 was sent to all parties on 17 March 2025, and the family disputes that claim. What record establishes the asserted service, and what costs material was available at the earlier 10 March hearing?
Why this matters A fair opportunity to answer
The person facing a financial demand needs to know its basis and have a meaningful opportunity to challenge it. Filing with the court and serving the other party are separate matters.
Related request in record 29 April 2026 · signed final notice
What the supplied reply addresses
The reviewed final notice records the author’s position that no N260 or adequate explanation had been supplied. No substantive reply resolving these points has been provided to this publication. Mr J reports that the requests remain unresolved.
The supplied signed final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes repeated requests exceeding one year. Mr J reports that these remain unanswered as of 15 September 2026. This page restates and specifies those requests; it is not a newly delivered enquiry from The Unanswered Record. The seven-day period in the letter was requested by its author, not imposed by this publication or identified as a court direction.
Documents: R, pp. 1–2
COSTS-03Unresolved according to the family
The published correspondence challenges an assessment of £3,500 and a £1,750 payment requirement. What work, hours, rates, fees and adjustments produced those figures? Identify the recorded reasoning, the operative order and the payment deadline. Explain the basis for the payment timing that Miss E describes as immediate.
Why this matters An explainable financial decision
The amount assessed, the amount payable and the time for payment each require a clear explanation. A short hearing alone does not reveal all the work for which costs may have been sought.
Related request in record 29 April 2026 · signed final notice
What the supplied reply addresses
The reviewed final notice records the author’s position that no N260 or adequate explanation had been supplied. No substantive reply resolving these points has been provided to this publication. Mr J reports that the requests remain unresolved.
The supplied signed final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes repeated requests exceeding one year. Mr J reports that these remain unanswered as of 15 September 2026. This page restates and specifies those requests; it is not a newly delivered enquiry from The Unanswered Record. The seven-day period in the letter was requested by its author, not imposed by this publication or identified as a court direction.
Documents: R, pp. 1–2
COSTS-04Unresolved according to the family
Where are the reasons explaining the costs assessment and payment requirement recorded? Identify any judgment, order, hearing recording, transcript or contemporaneous note that contains them, and explain how Miss E can obtain the relevant record. What costs submissions were considered, and what objections by Miss E were addressed?
Why this matters Scrutiny of judicial reasoning
A party cannot meaningfully understand or challenge a decision if its reasoning cannot be located. The question calls for the decision’s recorded basis, not a private discussion with the judge.
Related request in record 29 April 2026 · signed final notice
What the supplied reply addresses
The reviewed final notice records the author’s position that no N260 or adequate explanation had been supplied. No substantive reply resolving these points has been provided to this publication. Mr J reports that the requests remain unresolved.
The supplied signed final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes repeated requests exceeding one year. Mr J reports that these remain unanswered as of 15 September 2026. This page restates and specifies those requests; it is not a newly delivered enquiry from The Unanswered Record. The seven-day period in the letter was requested by its author, not imposed by this publication or identified as a court direction.
Documents: R, pp. 1–2
COSTS-05Unresolved according to the family
What substantive response addresses the requests repeated in the 29 April 2026 final notice? Identify the date, recipient and supporting records for any response already given. If the requested documents or reasons have not been provided, explain what remains outstanding, who is responsible for responding and how the request will be resolved.
Why this matters Responsibility for an answer
Repeated requests for the basis of a financial order should lead to a traceable outcome. The continuing reported gap matters because it leaves the affected party unable to check the decision against its supporting record.
Related request in record 29 April 2026 · signed final notice
What the supplied reply addresses
The reviewed final notice records the author’s position that no N260 or adequate explanation had been supplied. No substantive reply resolving these points has been provided to this publication. Mr J reports that the requests remain unresolved.
The supplied signed final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes repeated requests exceeding one year. Mr J reports that these remain unanswered as of 15 September 2026. This page restates and specifies those requests; it is not a newly delivered enquiry from The Unanswered Record. The seven-day period in the letter was requested by its author, not imposed by this publication or identified as a court direction.
Documents: R, pp. 1–2
BH68-12Proposed · not yet sent
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.
Why this matters Standards that can be tested
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.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
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.
Documents: S, published standards and scope · A, pp. 4–6 · G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3
BH68-13Proposed · not yet sent
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?
Why this matters Accountable review
A concern passed between staff, departments and solicitors needs an identifiable owner able to reach the underlying records and give a reasoned outcome.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
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.
Documents: S, ethics and wayleave-complaint scope · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3
BH68-14Proposed · not yet sent
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?
Why this matters Traceable evidence
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.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
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.
Documents: A, pp. 4–6 · B, pp. 2–8 · C, p. 2 · F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 1–5 · S, record-integrity standards
BH68-15Proposed · not yet sent
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.
Why this matters An answer is more than an acknowledgement
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.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
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.
Documents: G, pp. 1–5 · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, customer-service and complaints standards
BH68-16Proposed · not yet sent
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.
Why this matters Responsibility survives referral
Use of external advisers should leave the company able to explain who owns a concern and which factual checks underpin its response.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
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.
Documents: D, pp. 1–5 · E, p. 3 · G, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, policy applicability
BH68-17Proposed · not yet sent
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.
Why this matters A checkable conclusion
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.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
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.
Documents: A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, executive and company standards
