The question · editorial wording
What agreement or other basis supports the claimed BH68 wayleave rights connected with Mr Mayo? Produce the agreement, its date, parties and plan. Identify the land and apparatus covered. If an older agreement is relied upon, what establishes its continued application after any ownership change or subdivision, and how does it relate to Miss E’s signed 2024 agreement?
Why this matters Verifiability
Miss E’s signed agreement provides a specific record against which the claimed BH68 rights can be compared. A transfer assertion should identify the relevant agreement or other basis, the land and apparatus, and why an older arrangement is said still to apply. Without those records, the family cannot test the competing claim. Integrity requires that comparison to be possible.
Current question directed to: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · via Geldards LLP, the instructed firm, and Mark Hacking, its named contact
- Recipient of the related request in the supplied record
- Nick Shackson
- Related request in record
- 6 May 2026
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
The family’s letter before action was addressed to Nick Shackson (Document D, pp. 4–5). This register groups the question with the company whose agreements are at issue. The additional 7 May 2026 Geldards reply acknowledges reviewing recent emails and letters addressed to Nick Shackson, without identifying each version. It also confirms receipt of the forwarded Skea letter. No new request by this publication is recorded as sent. The supplied copy of the 6 May covering email lists a National Grid legal mailbox in BCC; that records an intended copied recipient, not proof of transmission, delivery or receipt (Document E, p. 1). The comparison with Miss E’s agreement, PCC’s earlier letter and the alleged subdivision is expanded editorial wording informed by Mr J’s additional account of 12 September 2026. Sending those additional questions is not established. Tom Watson is linked as the public professional match to the first-named Tom in the family’s office account; he is not a recorded recipient of this question. The basis and limits of that identification are explained in his profile.
What the record answers
The 2 February reply says existing wayleaves transferred to Mr Mayo. The supplied replies do not identify the individual agreements or establish whether one covers BH68. Mark Hacking’s 7 May reply promises a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence but does not identify those agreements.
The point still requiring clarification
Mr Shackson’s 2 February reply states that existing wayleaves transferred. The supplied replies do not identify the individual agreements or establish whether one covers BH68. The later 5 May reply confirms instruction of Geldards LLP and separately names Mark Hacking as a contact, not as the author of the original statement.
Related requests and replies supplied through 7 May 2026; later substantive clarification not established. 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.
- BH68-04 · Why rely on this plan—and where is the agreement?
- 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: A, pp. 1, 4–6 · B, pp. 5–7 · D, pp. 3–5 · E, p. 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 BH68-03 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-03 ↗