The question · editorial wording
Seldons’ letter of 28 October 2025 acknowledges the 27 October correspondence and attachments and reserves the firm’s position. What action followed that notice? Who was responsible, which records were preserved and where is the substantive review outcome? Cornwell had rejected the tampering allegations on 24 October and supplied copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally: what comparison established that their content matched the originals? Will a partner identify the received, self-forwarded and court-filed versions, each change, the written withholding notice and grounds under CPR 31.19, and the preserved original under PD 31B paragraph 35? Who checked the version relied on in paragraph 42 of the amended claim? Identify the first redaction explanation and any response to the reported objection in court. Was verification sought directly from Amelia Skea or National Grid? Identify the supporting record and any correction required.
Why this matters Evidence stewardship
A firm-level answer should explain how evidence bearing its solicitor’s name was handled and checked. The integrity test is whether the disclosed copy preserved the original meaning and made its changes traceable, including the action taken if a problem is found.
Current question directed to: Seldons LLP / Seldons Solicitors · managing partner or professional-standards partner · Bideford
- Proposed recipients
- Seldons Solicitors
- Date sent by this publication
- Not sent
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
Updated 18 September 2026 after reading the sent notice and the 28 October 2025 acknowledgement in Outlook, and the saved 24 October replies. Receipt of the historical notice and attachments is recorded. This expanded publication question has not been sent and is not marked overdue.
What the record answers
The 28 October letter acknowledges receipt and reserves the firm’s position entirely on the content. The 24 October reply had expressly denied tampering and described replacement copies delivered personally by Mr Mayo. Those responses are recorded; they do not themselves supply the native-message comparison or a documented firm-level review outcome.
The point still requiring clarification
The firm is asked for its own position, the supervision record, a protected version comparison and any correction needed. The proposed review does not assume that a change necessarily altered the substantive meaning.
Updated firm-review question · 18 September 2026 · not sent by this publication. 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 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · T, notice, acknowledgement, earlier denial and T7: primary court record.
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 BH68-10 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-10 ↗