The question · editorial wording
On 7 May 2026 you promised a substantive response to the recent Shackson correspondence. Where is that response? Separately, which dated answer resolves the Skea email-authentication and BH68 agreement questions? Produce the answers and supporting records. If these points remain unanswered, why, what prevents an answer, and when will you provide one?
Why this matters Answerability
A promise of a substantive response gives the family a concrete commitment against which to ask what happened next. An acknowledgement leaves the underlying verification work unfinished. Accountability requires the promised answer, its supporting records or an explanation of what prevents it.
Current question directed to: Mark Hacking / Geldards LLP · for National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Nottingham office
- Proposed recipients
- Mark Hacking · Geldards LLP
- Date sent by this publication
- Not sent
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
This follow-up tests the 24 April 2026 statement that earlier requests were dealt with and the 7 May promise concerning Shackson correspondence against the replies and records. It separately asks about Skea authentication, without treating that as the express subject of the promise. Mr J reports on 12 September 2026 that no later substantive answer was received; later correspondence has not been independently checked. No sending date or deadline is recorded for this new consolidated question.
What the record answers
The 10 March 2025 message records a referral. On 24 April 2026 Mark Hacking says he is instructed that earlier requests were dealt with and asks what further material is sought. On 7 May he acknowledges the Skea letter and promises a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence. No later substantive answer is included in the supplied export.
The point still requiring clarification
The correspondence contains real responses, but those pages do not identify an answer authenticating the disputed exchange or producing the particular BH68 supporting records. This is a proposed request for that identification, not a claim that Geldards has ignored this newly worded question.
Draft editorial follow-up based on replies through 7 May 2026 and Mr J’s 12 September update; no new request 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 · 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 BH68-07 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-07 ↗