The question · editorial wording
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.
Current question directed to: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · concerning the payment-record update attributed to Amelia Skea · South West Wayleave Records, Bodmin
- Recipient of the related request in the supplied record
- Amelia Skea
- Related request in record
- 7 May 2026
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
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.
What the record answers
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 point still requiring clarification
The April 2024 printout predates the June agreement. Identify exactly what was updated, the documents supporting the change and how the later agreement relates to it. The supplied replies leave that comparison unresolved.
7 May 2026 formal request and acknowledged notification; on 12 September 2026 Mr J reports no later substantive clarification, not independently verified. 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: F, pp. 1–2 · A, pp. 4–6 · G, pp. 3–5 · H, pp. 2–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1.
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 BH68-06 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-06 ↗