The question · editorial wording
Which agreement or other instrument do you rely on for rights concerning BH68? Identify its date, parties, plan, apparatus and the land to which it applies. If you rely on an older agreement rather than one in your name, identify the record establishing its continued application to your land. Explain how that position relates to Miss E’s signed June 2024 agreement. If the family has misstated your position, provide the precise correction and supporting document. Did your 9 April 2024 email contain the words “The pole numbers are BH67 and BH68” as shown in the disputed copy? Provide your sent message, its attachments and the reply you received, and identify the agreement or other instrument relating to each pole.
Why this matters A checkable claim
A claim about particular land and apparatus should identify the instrument and reasoning that support it. Naming the agreement and its scope lets readers compare competing accounts against documents rather than implications.
Current question directed to: Mark John Mayo · response may be provided through his representative
- Proposed recipients
- Mark Mayo
- Date sent by this publication
- Not sent
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
Prepared on 12 September 2026 as a direct question to Mr Mayo, distinct from historical requests to National Grid. No sending date, response or deadline is recorded for this proposed question. Expanded on 13 September 2026 to ask about the exact pole-reference wording and both underlying instruments; not sent by this publication.
What the record answers
The supplied record includes correspondence about the plan and the position attributed to Mr Mayo. Shackson asserts that existing wayleaves transferred. This proposed question asks Mr Mayo to identify his precise position and the instrument supporting it; it is not described as a question already ignored by him.
The point still requiring clarification
Identify the instrument, its scope and the basis on which it is said to apply. The question is not whether any historic documents exist, but which document supports the particular BH68 position now relied upon.
Proposed direct question · 12 September 2026 · not sent. No live “days unanswered” count is used.
Where this question comes from
Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan → Read the originating article
Supporting source notes: A, pp. 4–6 · B, pp. 5–7 · C, p. 2 · D, pp. 3–5 · F, pp. 1–2 · M, pp. 19–20.
Other parties mentioned
These connections provide context; they do not establish delivery of this question to every named party.
Keep the record complete
Answer this question.
Any party with a response, correction or relevant document can contact theunansweredrecord@gmail.com. Quote BH68-11 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-11 ↗