The question · editorial wording
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.
Current question directed to: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Chief Executive’s Office / executive review
- Proposed recipients
- National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc
- Date sent by this publication
- Not sent
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
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.
What the record answers
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.
The point still requiring clarification
Identify a responsible senior officer, the checks performed, their written outcome and the route to completing any unresolved work. Mr J reports that the substantive verification answers remain outstanding; this register does not mark the new executive question as overdue.
Proposed executive-review 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: G, pp. 1–5 · D, pp. 1–3 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3.
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 BH68-09 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-09 ↗