The developing record
Latest developments.
What changed. Why it matters.
Where to read it.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152
Reporting updates, newest first
- Submission and regulatory response examined
The evidence arrived. Why was the SRA file closed?
The expanded report, indexed exhibits, receipt acknowledgment, 30 October decision and November follow-up promise are now compared. Five allegation strands and seven questions for Laurence Price and the SRA make the assessment—and its court-first reasoning—open to scrutiny.
Read the submission and response trail - Primary court record and questions expanded
If the emails were edited, where was that disclosed?
The amended claim’s paragraph 42, statement of truth and MJM2 email exhibit are now identified. The articles and linked recipient questions ask for the written redaction notice, preserved originals and checks supporting court reliance. The SRA review cites CPR 31.19 and PD 31B paragraph 35; Mr J’s hearing recollection is separately attributed.
Read the redaction and SRA questions - Pleading and exhibit identified
The verified pleading. The exhibit. The written-notice question.
The BH68 article now links the precise pleading and email-exhibit pages, the family’s reported objection in court and the updated redaction-rule questions for Cornwell, Seldons and the SRA.
Read the court-record update - Case map and response record added
Annex E: the allegations were delivered. What happened next?
A seven-strand overview connects the latest Annex E to Seldons’ acknowledged receipt, Cornwell’s earlier denial, the SRA closure decision and the later trial order. Nine proposed questions are organised by recipient. The BH68 response record is updated to include the newly reviewed replies.
Read the case map and response trail - Material response context added
Seldons’ receipt, denial and the later outcomes
The article now records the 28 October acknowledgement, the 24 October denial and replacement-copy explanation, and links to the SRA decision and July 2026 court order.
Read the response update - Executive-review questions prepared
National Grid’s standards. Six questions for its Chief Executive.
A new question pack for Zoë Yujnovich asks which policies applied, who will examine the BH68 records, where the substantive answers are and when a written outcome will follow. Official policy sources and the recorded reply trail are linked. These executive questions have not yet been sent.
Read the executive-review questions - Historic-plan strand expanded
Fourteen days. A warning of refusal. Where is the plan?
The family’s reviewed September 2025 letter quotes a 14-day warning concerning the historic garden/curtilage plan. Mr J identifies a handwritten plan note behind the objection. Four further questions ask Torridge, Jennifer Slade, Peter Stapley and Helen Smith to connect the requirement, response, 1989 approval and 1991 drawings.
Follow the historic-plan questions - Assessment-integrity strand added
A disputed photograph. A claimed visit. Who checked?
The September 2025 objection’s photographic comparison is now examined as a distinct strand. Six additional questions ask Torridge, its conservation team, Peter Stapley, Helen Smith, Sarah Chappell and Jennifer Slade for the original note, image provenance, visit record and handling of the warning before the decision.
Read the photograph and site-visit challenge - New investigation strand
The sign, the driveway and the unanswered planning questions
The planning strand examines the sale-related sign, concrete-driveway records, heritage objections and Council replies. Twelve new questions are organised by recipient; the smaller displayed sheet’s origin and status remain unverified.
Read the planning investigation - Edition updated
Issue 001: the hearing connection and the costs challenge
The expanded first edition connects the attributed BH68 email to the costs hearing, adds the family’s withholding and false-statement allegations, and sets out the reported 17 March service claim. The complete current issue brings the reporting together in one reading journey.
Read Issue 001 - Contributor account added
10 March hearing. 17 March claimed service.
Mr J reports a sworn claim that the N260 was sent on 17 March. The family disputes that account and alleges deliberate withholding and an illegitimate costs order. The questions ask for the statement, service evidence and recorded basis of the assessment.
Read the dated account and questions - Contributor account added
BH68 and the costs hearing: the connection described by Mr J
Mr J reports that the attributed wayleave email was relied on at the same hearing where the costs order was made. The article now connects that account to Judge Paul Mitchell’s costs questions and the wider case record.
Read the hearing connection - Reporting expanded
Judge Paul Mitchell and the outstanding costs record
The costs strand now includes the signed final notice of 29 April 2026, five focused questions about the statement, filing, service and reasons, and notice of further reporting as additional material is examined.
Read the costs update - Reporting added
Miss E’s public review and costs questions
The case file now links her existing Google review and the three images of two written requests. The feature highlights the costs schedule, the £3,500 assessment and the £1,750 immediate-payment question.
Read the review feature - Source notes added
Five source notes added to the formal-notice trail
The October notices and referral request are now explained alongside Annex E and J-1/J-2. The reporting connects the family’s formal allegations, the preservation requests and the documents sought.
Follow the formal notices - Reporting updated
BH67, BH68 and the exact email wording
The existing attributed exchange has been re-examined. The article distinguishes the incoming message naming both poles from the reply’s “your wayleave” wording and sets out the family’s specific insertion allegation.
Read the email comparison - Questions updated
The plan, agreement and email questions connected
The questions now connect Mr J’s account of late introduction and court reliance on the plan with the requested agreement and disputed email. Readers can follow each question to its source and response record.
Read the connected questions
The feed records additions to this developing publication. “Source notes added” means new explanations of reviewed material—not necessarily new events or newly created documents.
Stay with the story
Follow the investigation
as the record develops.
This chapter does not close the case. Follow what changes when another document, account or answer enters the record.
Follow Daux Scythe, our presenter, on LinkedIn for new reporting, evidence reviews and significant developments. The website remains the home of the articles, documents and response record.
This opens his profile; choose Follow on LinkedIn. Following does not guarantee that every post appears in your feed.
Read our numbered monthly editions in one place. Read and download Issue 001. Subscribe by email.