Why rely on this plan—and where is the agreement?

The question · editorial wording

Mr J says the April 2025 plan was introduced late in the proceedings and relied upon in court to support Mr Mayo’s claimed BH68 rights. Why was it introduced at that stage, and what exactly was it presented as proving? Given Mr Shackson’s later description of a general-area map, “not any particular title”, what justified relying on it for that purpose? Identify the document and the assertion it supported. Where is the executed BH68 wayleave agreement in Mr Mayo’s name and its accompanying plan that the family says it repeatedly requested? If your position rests on an older agreement or another instrument, identify it and explain how it applies to the relevant land and BH68. Identify the accompanying statement of truth, its signatory and the precise assertions it verified, including which email version was exhibited.

Current question directed to: Luke Cornwell / Seldons Solicitors · concerning Mr Mayo’s representation described in the correspondence · Bideford, Devon, United Kingdom

Proposed recipients

Luke Cornwell · 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 13 September 2026 from Mr J’s account and the plan correspondence. Mr J says the disputed emails were put before the court in material supported by a statement of truth. The October 2025 submissions now reviewed also make that allegation. The question addresses the reported late introduction of the plan, court reliance and supporting agreement. It has not been sent by this publication.

What the record answers

Mr Shackson’s 10 February 2026 explanation describes a general-area map, “not any particular title”, and says it was not produced through registered chartered-surveyor survey work. This does not answer why it was reportedly introduced and relied upon in court, or identify the executed agreement requested by the family.

The point still requiring clarification

The issue is why this plan was introduced and what evidential basis supported its reported use—not simply whether it was used. Mr J says it was relied upon, was not suitable as a wayleave-agreement plan, and did not supply the missing executed agreement. The correspondence records Mr Shackson’s later general-area explanation. The reported court use and timing are Mr J’s account; this question seeks the precise filing, justification and underlying agreement.

Question wording updated 13 September 2026 · not sent by this publication. 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?
• BH68-05 · Is the disputed email exchange authentic?
• 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: C, pp. 1–2 · B, pp. 2–7 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, p. 7 · L, pp. 2, 5.

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.