Is the disputed email exchange authentic?

The question · editorial wording

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.

Current question directed to: Amelia Skea · Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office · National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc

Recipient of the related request in the supplied record

Amelia Skea

Related request in record

7 March 2025; renewed 7 May 2026

Sending of a new request by this publication

Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.

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.

What the record answers

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 point still requiring clarification

Mr J reports that neither a BH68 nor a BH67 agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family. On 13 September 2026 he alleges possible knowing involvement by Ms Skea in misleading wording or failure to correct wording she knows was falsely attributed to her. The retained messages and agreement records are sought to test that allegation. The supplied referral and solicitor correspondence do not provide an authentication finding.

Documents reviewed through 7 May 2026; on 12 September 2026 Mr J reports no later substantive answer, not independently verified. No live “days unanswered” count is used.

The connected questions

The agreement, the plan’s reported court use and the email’s authenticity form one documentary chain. These questions test the links in that chain.

• BH68-03 · Which wayleaves cover BH68?
• BH68-04 · Why rely on this plan—and where is the agreement?
• BH68-08 · Why self-forward the disputed email—and what verifies it?

Where this question comes from

Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan → Read the originating article

Supporting source notes: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 2–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20.

Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152

Other parties mentioned

These connections provide context; they do not establish delivery of this question to every named party.