Questions by recipient
Seldons LLP
AE-01 · Proposed · not sent
Receipt is recorded. What happened next?
Your letter of 28 October 2025 acknowledges the correspondence and attachments sent on 27 October, and reserves the firm’s position. Who was assigned to assess the notice? Identify the documents received, preservation steps, checks undertaken and the dated substantive response, if any. Was the reservation a holding response or your final position? What allegations do you dispute, for what reasons, and what further information is needed?
Why this matters: A receipt identifies a point at which the firm had the notice. The question is what it did with the specified records, not whether the reservation itself amounts to an admission.
AE-04 · Proposed · not sent
What did the expert actually receive?
Annex E alleges that disputed email copies were supplied to Mr Dennis Venn while Miss E’s executed National Grid material was omitted. Identify the instruction dates, document index, versions supplied and any later supplementary material. Was her agreement and plan provided, and where does the report address them? Identify which propositions were instructions, disputed assumptions or the expert’s own observations, and any judgment passage resolving this challenge.
Why this matters: An instruction-and-document trail tests the alleged omission directly. The allegation cannot be settled simply by repeating either party’s description of the expert report.
AE-05 · Proposed · not sent
Can the disputed schedules be reconciled line by line?
Annex E section A challenges the two N260 schedules for 19 January 2026 and identifies different time entries, components and subtotals. Provide the exact filed and served versions, explain the entries and arithmetic, identify any correction and the assessment or order that dealt with the objection. Keep this separate from the family’s request for the underlying statement for the March 2025 costs hearing.
Why this matters: Different hearings and different schedules must not be merged. A reproducible calculation and the court’s treatment of it are more useful than a general assertion that every schedule is sound or false.
Questions by recipient
Luke Cornwell · Seldons LLP
AE-02 · Proposed · not sent
If the emails were edited, where was that disclosed?
Paragraph 42 of the second amended Particulars of Claim relies on MJM2 pages 20–25 as evidence of transfer. Was the version supplied edited or redacted? Identify every substantive change, its author and date, and the written notice or disclosure-list entry recording the withheld material and grounds under CPR 31.19. If no such notice exists, explain why and identify any relevant direction. Where is the original preserved for comparison under PD 31B paragraph 35? Was BH68 present in the original incoming request? Identify the checks supporting paragraph 42, the first redaction explanation, and any hearing record addressing Mr J’s objection. How do the replacement copies described in your 24 October denial resolve these points?
Why this matters: The chain was relied on for a specific pleaded proposition. Identifying the original, the notice and the exact reliance makes the alleged concealment testable without requiring public disclosure of genuinely privileged content.
AE-06 · Proposed · not sent
Where is the document trail behind the wider allegations?
For Annex E sections B, C and G, identify the joinder order and transcript passages relied upon, the operative amended pleadings, and the provenance of the disputed conveyancing versions. Explain any relevant corrections or redactions and identify the court’s findings on these issues. Provide non-privileged records, with personal financial details protected; if inspection is withheld, identify the category and the applicable ground.
Why this matters: This separates a pleading disagreement, a document-version concern and a court ruling. It seeks relevant evidence without treating private finances or privilege as proof of wrongdoing.
Questions by recipient
Mark John Mayo
AE-03 · Proposed · not sent
Which records support the asserted rights?
Identify the instrument and land relied on for the claimed BH68 rights, and explain the asserted transfer of the 1963 and 1975 wayleaves described in the 24 October correspondence. Separately identify the historic boundary agreement referred to in Annex E and the evidence relied on for it. Distinguish the wayleave instrument, the claimed boundary arrangement and the later court determination; they are not the same document.
Why this matters: The factual basis should remain traceable even where a court has subsequently determined a boundary. A reference to one document should not silently substitute for another.
Questions by recipient
National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc
AE-07 · Proposed · not sent
Which original company records answer Annex E?
Authenticate the retained request and reply attributed to Mr Mayo and Amelia Skea, identify the apparatus and underlying agreement for each pole, and reconcile them with Miss E’s signed 2024 BH68 agreement and Nick Shackson’s plan correspondence. Which of these matters has the company already answered, with what records? Refer any unresolved items to the responsible reviewer and give a dated outcome.
Why this matters: The original company records are the direct way to test the email-insertion allegation and the competing descriptions of rights. The executive review requested elsewhere should lead back to those records.
Questions by recipient
Forestry Commission
AE-08 · Proposed · not sent
What was inspected, and what was the report intended to establish?
Annex E alleges that woodland correspondence was used to misrepresent compliance with an access order. Identify the original request, visit notes, report and any revisions or communications about use in court. Distinguish what the officer observed from information supplied by Mr Mayo. Did the report purport to determine compliance with a civil access order, and if so on what material?
Why this matters: A forestry observation, a party’s account and a finding about compliance with a court order have different evidential roles. The original report and correspondence can show whether those roles were kept separate.
Laurence Price and the SRA: the handling questions.
The original concerns were received and the file was closed. A separate seven-question pack asks what was assessed, why court findings were required first and what followed the November challenge.
Questions by recipient
Solicitors Regulation Authority
AE-09 · Proposed · not sent
Will you assess the alleged undisclosed editing against the actual rules?
Following your 30 October 2025 closure decision, will you examine the identified pleading and MJM2 exhibit, obtain the original/edited versions and establish whether written notice and preservation complied with CPR 31.19 and PD 31B paragraph 35, subject to the applicable directions? Will you assess whether the court or opponent was misled under Code 1.4 or evidence was misused under 2.1–2.2, including who prepared, checked and knew about any changes? Identify which judicial reasons or additional records would justify further assessment and whether any later submission has been assessed.
Why this matters: The question is not simply whether the family lost the civil case. It is whether a distinct, evidentially supportable conduct issue was assessed, and what record would resolve it. The earlier closed file and later court outcome must form part of that assessment.
Identify the answer. Show the record.
Send a response or correction to theunansweredrecord@gmail.com, quoting the AE number. Identify what is accepted, disputed or unresolved, with dates and relevant supporting records. Do not send unredacted personal banking data or privileged material.
These are editorial questions, not a court order or a filed regulatory complaint. Readers with relevant evidence should contact the editorial desk; repeated approaches to individuals are not requested.