Investigations in the public interestEvidence. Enquiry. Accountability.
The Unanswered Record · Accountability
Allegations. Evidence. Accountability.
The conduct alleged. The people asked to answer. The consequences if it is established.
We support Miss E and Mr J in demanding answers about their home, safety, finances and treatment by public bodies. Follow each allegation to the documents, the response and the precise point still unresolved.
52 issue records · 59 named recipients · 294 linked questions · Updated 2 October 2026
These are attributed allegations and accountability questions, not a list of criminal charges or findings. Potential offences are linked to their legal tests.
The connected allegation / Miss E and Mr J
Warnings about her safety. Who answered the risk?
The family alleges coordinated intimidation for financial or property advantage. Follow the dated warnings, the replies and the records needed to establish each person’s role and any shared purpose.
The shooting-noise accountability record now separates the March assessment, April relocation assurance and December renewed complaint. Miss E and Mr J allege that failures prolonged her suffering and demand independent review, effective protection and redress.
Alleged extortion / Wrongful accusations / The home
The house was in view. Show the liability behind the demands.
Seldons’ 23 June 2025 letter connects enforcement against the home with proposed joinder. Miss E plans a claim against Mark John Mayo concerning alleged extortion and wrongful accusations. Follow the connected evidence: the demands, their financial basis, disputed accusations and reported harm, with the orders and replies in context.
Miss E’s case-management challenge leads to a wider demand: an accessible compensation route and, where justified, personal financial liability after independent findings of deliberate judicial abuse and resulting loss.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Paul Mitchell deliberately exposed an elderly, financially constrained litigant to disproportionate expense and procedural pressure, and that this formed part of coordinated conduct for financial or property advantage. They challenge the allocation, subsequent costs control and treatment of explicit affordability warnings.
Miss E and Mr J challenge the court’s handling of her urgent injury-related request. They ask what consideration was given to her condition, safety fears and ability to prepare documents, rather than treating the matter only as a deadline problem.
Mr J alleges that Paul Mitchell’s replacement of joint instruction with claimant-only instruction was deliberately biased and part of collusion to advance a claim over the family’s land. He links it to the separate unresolved March 2025 costs-document dispute and alleges corrupt use of judicial authority. The alleged purpose is not established by the direction alone.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Paul Mitchell imposed an illegitimate costs burden without a demonstrated underlying calculation, and that the continuing failure to provide that record conceals knowing judicial wrongdoing. They call for investigation of possible collusion and deliberate abuse of office.
Miss E and Mr J allege that disputed order handling and continued enforcement, while the earlier N260 and its service evidence remain unproduced to them, formed a coordinated abuse of process intended to pressure Miss E. They seek investigation of alleged dishonest document handling and collusion; each person’s actual role is identified in the linked chronology and questions.
Mayo referred to one £2,000 order outstanding, attributed to Paul Mitchell, and another £2,000 pending. Miss E says she did not know which further matters were meant. The publication asks for each order or application and its notification record.
Mr J reports that Mayo described paying a company which then paid his legal expenses, followed by Blohm allowing 20% VAT. The family challenges the evidence and calculation. The exact exchange remains a participant account pending the transcript; it is not published as a verified quotation or proof of tax evasion.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Leslie Adrian Blohm’s refusal of N260 disclosure shields an illegitimate assessment from scrutiny. Mr J alleges deliberate protection of Paul Mitchell and knowing judicial wrongdoing; Miss E challenges Blohm’s continued involvement and seeks independent determination.
Miss E alleges that Timothy Edmund Walsh selectively disregarded Rosalind Jenkins’s reported acknowledgment of a planted area above the bank while accepting the boundary outcome favouring Mayo. She asks for the findings and reasoning addressing that evidence.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Timothy Edmund Walsh’s handling failed to address the reported disturbance, vulnerability and need for protection, leaving Miss E to face continuing insecurity and disruption at home. They challenge both the treatment of the evidence and the adequacy of the reasons and safeguards.
Mr J alleges that Timothy Edmund Walsh knowingly made false statements and abused his judicial position to discredit Miss E and Mr J. Miss E alleges bias and challenges specific findings. They allege that the treatment of forestry evidence and safety concerns favoured the claimant and concealed material contradictions.
Deputy District Judge who heard the 10 December 2025 third-party debt order proceedings at Barnstaple; identified by his introduction in the hearing transcript
Miss E and Mr J allege that Nicholas Johnson’s treatment at the 10 December 2025 hearing was oppressive and biased, prevented effective explanation of her objections and insulated disputed enforcement from scrutiny. Mr J’s next-day letter challenges both the manner of the hearing and whether the answers engaged with the underlying reasons and records.
Mr J requested professional indemnity insurance details to notify potential claims alleging fraudulent documentation. Cornwell’s reply named HDI Global and Browne Jacobson, but gave no policy number. The family questions whether the allegations and evidence reached the insurer in full and challenges the use of an intermediary without a complete notification record.
Miss E and Mr J allege financially motivated coercion: that costs, enforcement and the expansion of the claim were used to pressure a vulnerable homeowner and then another person with an interest in the home. Miss E states that she plans a claim against Mark John Mayo concerning alleged extortion and wrongful accusations; no new filing is represented here. The June 2025 letter expressly connects potential recovery against the house with joinder.
Mr J reports that Mayo described paying a company which then paid his legal expenses, followed by Blohm allowing 20% VAT. The family challenges the evidence and calculation. The exact exchange remains a participant account pending the transcript; it is not published as a verified quotation or proof of tax evasion.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Seldons’ harassment counter-allegation and subsequent communication warning added intimidation to the aftermath of her reported assault. They challenge the basis, proportionality and consideration of vulnerability behind the firm’s conduct.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Cornwell and Seldons used procedural and costs pressure to discredit or deter legitimate disturbance complaints instead of addressing the reported burden on a vulnerable occupant. They ask whether that handling took unfair advantage of her position.
Miss E and Mr J allege that completion and financial documents were fabricated or misleadingly presented to support Mark John Mayo’s asserted field purchase. Mr J alleges that Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell and Seldons LLP supplied constructed papers rather than an authenticated conveyancing record. They dispute whether the £120,000 consideration was paid. The new comparison identifies the specific documents and transactions requiring verification.
Miss E and Mr J allege deliberate manipulation of the evidence supplied to Dennis Venn, involving Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell, Seldons LLP and Mark John Mayo. They allege that Venn participated in using an incomplete and misleading foundation to support a boundary claim over land they say was not Mayo’s. Mr J describes the intended result as taking property through false evidence. These allegations are disputed and have not been established as findings of criminal conduct.
The family alleges that Luke Cornwell inserted BH68 into correspondence originally concerning BH67 and used it with Mr Mayo to support the boundary claim. Mr J alleges undisclosed editing with an explanation only after challenge. The 27 October 2025 email expressly addresses both Cornwell and Seldons LLP and demands preservation of originals and metadata.
Miss E and Mr J allege that disputed order handling and continued enforcement, while the earlier N260 and its service evidence remain unproduced to them, formed a coordinated abuse of process intended to pressure Miss E. They seek investigation of alleged dishonest document handling and collusion; each person’s actual role is identified in the linked chronology and questions.
Miss E and Mr J allege that the temporary cessation of representation avoided scrutiny of the outstanding costs documents. They connect that sequence to the later refusal to reproduce the earlier N260 despite a precise assertion that it had been served.
Miss E and Mr J allege that their representatives’ opponents advanced a misleading account and discredited genuine safety concerns instead of addressing the photographs, reported collision, single exit and conveyance protections. They put that criticism directly to Cornwell, Seldons and Webb over their respective court roles.
Mr J requested professional indemnity insurance details to notify potential claims alleging fraudulent documentation. Cornwell’s reply named HDI Global and Browne Jacobson, but gave no policy number. The family questions whether the allegations and evidence reached the insurer in full and challenges the use of an intermediary without a complete notification record.
Miss E and Mr J allege financially motivated coercion: that costs, enforcement and the expansion of the claim were used to pressure a vulnerable homeowner and then another person with an interest in the home. Miss E states that she plans a claim against Mark John Mayo concerning alleged extortion and wrongful accusations; no new filing is represented here. The June 2025 letter expressly connects potential recovery against the house with joinder.
Mr J reports that Mayo described paying a company which then paid his legal expenses, followed by Blohm allowing 20% VAT. The family challenges the evidence and calculation. The exact exchange remains a participant account pending the transcript; it is not published as a verified quotation or proof of tax evasion.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Seldons’ harassment counter-allegation and subsequent communication warning added intimidation to the aftermath of her reported assault. They challenge the basis, proportionality and consideration of vulnerability behind the firm’s conduct.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Cornwell and Seldons used procedural and costs pressure to discredit or deter legitimate disturbance complaints instead of addressing the reported burden on a vulnerable occupant. They ask whether that handling took unfair advantage of her position.
Miss E and Mr J allege that completion and financial documents were fabricated or misleadingly presented to support Mark John Mayo’s asserted field purchase. Mr J alleges that Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell and Seldons LLP supplied constructed papers rather than an authenticated conveyancing record. They dispute whether the £120,000 consideration was paid. The new comparison identifies the specific documents and transactions requiring verification.
Miss E and Mr J allege deliberate manipulation of the evidence supplied to Dennis Venn, involving Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell, Seldons LLP and Mark John Mayo. They allege that Venn participated in using an incomplete and misleading foundation to support a boundary claim over land they say was not Mayo’s. Mr J describes the intended result as taking property through false evidence. These allegations are disputed and have not been established as findings of criminal conduct.
The family alleges that Luke Cornwell inserted BH68 into correspondence originally concerning BH67 and used it with Mr Mayo to support the boundary claim. Mr J alleges undisclosed editing with an explanation only after challenge. The 27 October 2025 email expressly addresses both Cornwell and Seldons LLP and demands preservation of originals and metadata.
Miss E and Mr J allege that disputed order handling and continued enforcement, while the earlier N260 and its service evidence remain unproduced to them, formed a coordinated abuse of process intended to pressure Miss E. They seek investigation of alleged dishonest document handling and collusion; each person’s actual role is identified in the linked chronology and questions.
Miss E and Mr J allege that the temporary cessation of representation avoided scrutiny of the outstanding costs documents. They connect that sequence to the later refusal to reproduce the earlier N260 despite a precise assertion that it had been served.
Mr J challenges the absence of an identified, reasoned firm-level assessment after Seldons LLP was put on notice separately from Luke Cornwell. He regards the reservation of position and unidentified decision-maker as evasive handling of serious document-manipulation allegations.
Miss E and Mr J allege that their representatives’ opponents advanced a misleading account and discredited genuine safety concerns instead of addressing the photographs, reported collision, single exit and conveyance protections. They put that criticism directly to Cornwell, Seldons and Webb over their respective court roles.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Mark John Mayo deliberately used signs and approaches to the selling agents to obstruct the sale of their home. They challenge the accuracy and authority of the display and reserve claims for the resulting loss and harm.
Miss E and Mr J allege financially motivated coercion: that costs, enforcement and the expansion of the claim were used to pressure a vulnerable homeowner and then another person with an interest in the home. Miss E states that she plans a claim against Mark John Mayo concerning alleged extortion and wrongful accusations; no new filing is represented here. The June 2025 letter expressly connects potential recovery against the house with joinder.
Mr J reports that Mayo described paying a company which then paid his legal expenses, followed by Blohm allowing 20% VAT. The family challenges the evidence and calculation. The exact exchange remains a participant account pending the transcript; it is not published as a verified quotation or proof of tax evasion.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Mark John Mayo’s failure to comply with the 1987 dividing-fence covenant created or prolonged the uncertainty that led them into the boundary dispute. They seek accountability for the resulting losses they can establish.
Miss E and Mr J allege that completion and financial documents were fabricated or misleadingly presented to support Mark John Mayo’s asserted field purchase. Mr J alleges that Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell and Seldons LLP supplied constructed papers rather than an authenticated conveyancing record. They dispute whether the £120,000 consideration was paid. The new comparison identifies the specific documents and transactions requiring verification.
Miss E and Mr J allege deliberate manipulation of the evidence supplied to Dennis Venn, involving Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell, Seldons LLP and Mark John Mayo. They allege that Venn participated in using an incomplete and misleading foundation to support a boundary claim over land they say was not Mayo’s. Mr J describes the intended result as taking property through false evidence. These allegations are disputed and have not been established as findings of criminal conduct.
Miss E and Mr J allege that the April 2025 plan was used to create a false impression that Mr Mayo held wayleave rights concerning BH68, and to mislead the court. They direct the allegation to Mr Mayo and, over the supply and description of the plan, to Nick Shackson and National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
Miss E and Mr J allege that disputed order handling and continued enforcement, while the earlier N260 and its service evidence remain unproduced to them, formed a coordinated abuse of process intended to pressure Miss E. They seek investigation of alleged dishonest document handling and collusion; each person’s actual role is identified in the linked chronology and questions.
Mayo referred to one £2,000 order outstanding, attributed to Paul Mitchell, and another £2,000 pending. Miss E says she did not know which further matters were meant. The publication asks for each order or application and its notification record.
Miss E and Mr J allege fraudulent procurement and coordinated concealment of the authority used to pursue Miss E’s goods. They challenge Mark John Mayo’s enforcement application, Claire Louise Sandbrook’s registry account and Jo Copp’s handling of requests for the completed certificate.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Mark John Mayo advanced a false account of service of the March N260. The rough 10 March 2026 transcript records him attributing sending to his solicitors and offering to arrange resending. They say neither the original schedule nor transmission evidence has been supplied to them.
Miss E says Mark John Mayo stated under oath that he cut down only one tree and denied commercial felling. She and Mr J allege a material lie, contradicted by the photographic record, used to discredit their concerns about heavy vehicles beside their home.
Mr J links the exchange attributed to Amelia Skea (National Grid Wayleave Services; Bodmin, Cornwall, in the attributed April 2024 email signature) to the allegation that disputed BH68 rights were turned into support for a contrived boundary report. The original messages, operative agreements and versions supplied to Venn are the records sought.
Did you author the attributed reply, what agreement supported it, and which version—if any—reached the expert?
The reply attributed to Amelia Skea says “your wayleave”, beneath a request naming BH67 and BH68. Mr J alleges possible knowing involvement by Ms Skea in misleading wording or failure to correct wording she knows was falsely attributed to her. He reports that neither pole’s agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family. The questions ask her and National Grid to authenticate the linked exchange and identify the instrument for each pole.
Mr J links Nick Shackson’s plan to the allegation that Venn’s report was contrived to support Mayo’s boundary claim. Appendix IV visually matches the disputed plan; the exact supply trail remains to be established.
Which plan reached the expert, who supplied it, and what right was it said to establish?
Miss E and Mr J allege that the April 2025 plan was used to create a false impression that Mr Mayo held wayleave rights concerning BH68, and to mislead the court. They direct the allegation to Mr Mayo and, over the supply and description of the plan, to Nick Shackson and National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Henry Bexley allowed an inspection record to be shaped in cooperation with Mark John Mayo for use in private litigation. They challenge his request for confirmation of visit notes and the handling of Mayo’s stated intention to use the report in court.
Miss E and Mr J allege collusion in a police–Council process shaped around Mayo’s account while their evidence was not sought for the notice-making decision. They challenge the independence of the assessment and the personal conduct attributed to Miss E.
Miss E and Mr J allege that the Council’s response left her exposed to further disturbance. Ian McIver is asked to account for the monitoring and the relocation assurance he communicated, including what verified that it protected her home.
Miss E and Mr J allege collusion in a police–Council process shaped around Mayo’s account while their evidence was not sought for the notice-making decision. They challenge the independence of the assessment and the personal conduct attributed to Miss E.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Jack Webb’s involvement in the claimant’s case contributed to discrediting or sidelining genuine vulnerability and disturbance concerns. They call for scrutiny of his own evidence handling and advocacy, not simply his association with the claimant.
Miss E and Mr J allege that their representatives’ opponents advanced a misleading account and discredited genuine safety concerns instead of addressing the photographs, reported collision, single exit and conveyance protections. They put that criticism directly to Cornwell, Seldons and Webb over their respective court roles.
Mr J alleges a failure to discharge regulatory responsibility in the handling of detailed allegations against Cornwell and Seldons. He challenges the mismatch between the particularised material supplied and the decision not to investigate.
The record asks Anna Brown (Director, Forest Services, Forestry Commission; corporate correspondence office in Bristol) for the documents, explanation or supervisory review specified in the linked questions.
Miss E and Mr J allege a failure to address the warnings sent to the courts. HMCTS, Barnstaple and Exeter administration are asked to establish whether any failure to receive, process or refer the correspondence contributed to that alleged failure, and to identify each office’s actual responsibility.
SRA firm 599486; LLP OC385432; registered office Barnstaple and transaction correspondence office Bideford, Devon. Asked to authenticate the field-purchase records
4 questions
Start with this question · FT-01
Did your firm issue these exact completion statements?
Miss E challenges the handling of her appeal and the refusal to disclose underlying costs material. She seeks a clear record of which orders and directions governed each proceeding.
Mr J requested professional indemnity insurance details to notify potential claims alleging fraudulent documentation. Cornwell’s reply named HDI Global and Browne Jacobson, but gave no policy number. The family questions whether the allegations and evidence reached the insurer in full and challenges the use of an intermediary without a complete notification record.
Miss E and Mr J allege that disputed order handling and continued enforcement, while the earlier N260 and its service evidence remain unproduced to them, formed a coordinated abuse of process intended to pressure Miss E. They seek investigation of alleged dishonest document handling and collusion; each person’s actual role is identified in the linked chronology and questions.
Miss E and Mr J allege misleading accounts and concealment within the process used to obtain enforcement, and suspect fraudulent procurement. They connect Sandbrook’s written registry account and Shergroup Legal’s stated preparation role to the unnamed stamp, the wrong-office issue and the refusal to supply the certificate.
Miss E challenges continued enforcement warnings after sending the stay order and asks how the firm protected her while it processed the order. She seeks the actual receipt, allocation and hold records.
Miss E and Mr J allege fraudulent procurement and coordinated concealment of the authority used to pursue Miss E’s goods. They challenge Mark John Mayo’s enforcement application, Claire Louise Sandbrook’s registry account and Jo Copp’s handling of requests for the completed certificate.
Mr J challenges the ethics of pursuing a pensioner’s possessions while the March costs schedule and claimed service remain disputed and unproduced to her. He calls on Claire Louise Sandbrook and Shergroup to show what they knew, what they checked and how they protected Miss E—not simply invoke their authority to enforce.
The record asks David Dyball (Operations Admin Officer, Forestry Commission England, Operational Delivery Team, Kennford, Exeter, in his August 2024 reply) for the documents, explanation or supervisory review specified in the linked questions.
Dennis VennVickery Holman · official professional portraitImage source
Miss E and Mr J allege deliberate manipulation of the evidence supplied to Dennis Venn, involving Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell, Seldons LLP and Mark John Mayo. They allege that Venn participated in using an incomplete and misleading foundation to support a boundary claim over land they say was not Mayo’s. Mr J describes the intended result as taking property through false evidence. These allegations are disputed and have not been established as findings of criminal conduct.
Miss E and Mr J allege collusion in a police–Council process shaped around Mayo’s account while their evidence was not sought for the notice-making decision. They challenge the independence of the assessment and the personal conduct attributed to Miss E.
Miss E and Mr J allege a failure to address the warnings sent to the courts. HMCTS, Barnstaple and Exeter administration are asked to establish whether any failure to receive, process or refer the correspondence contributed to that alleged failure, and to identify each office’s actual responsibility.
The family asks HMCTS to examine the Barnstaple–Exeter management chain and identify who controlled the disputed order changes and the response to their objections.
On 7 May 2026, Mark Hacking of Geldards LLP promised a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence. Mr J reports that the substantive answers are still awaited as of 12 September 2026.
Mr J requested professional indemnity insurance details to notify potential claims alleging fraudulent documentation. Cornwell’s reply named HDI Global and Browne Jacobson, but gave no policy number. The family questions whether the allegations and evidence reached the insurer in full and challenges the use of an intermediary without a complete notification record.
The record asks Helen Smith (Planning Manager, Torridge District Council, Bideford, Devon; confirmed in the April 2026 record) for the documents, explanation or supervisory review specified in the linked questions.
Miss E and Mr J challenge the court’s handling of her urgent injury-related request. They ask what consideration was given to her condition, safety fears and ability to prepare documents, rather than treating the matter only as a deadline problem.
Miss E and Mr J allege a failure to address the warnings sent to the courts. HMCTS, Barnstaple and Exeter administration are asked to establish whether any failure to receive, process or refer the correspondence contributed to that alleged failure, and to identify each office’s actual responsibility.
Mayo referred to one £2,000 order outstanding, attributed to Paul Mitchell, and another £2,000 pending. Miss E says she did not know which further matters were meant. The publication asks for each order or application and its notification record.
Miss E and Mr J dispute the explanation that the TPDO changes were accidental recording errors and seek independent scrutiny of Jo Copp’s actions and their effect on enforcement. They allege deliberate manipulation; HMCTS is asked to establish the original decision, personal responsibilities and any relevant conflict.
On 7 May 2026, Mark Hacking of Geldards LLP promised a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence. Mr J reports that the substantive answers are still awaited as of 12 September 2026.
The record asks Jennifer Slade (Performance and Monitoring Team Leader, Torridge District Council, Bideford, Devon, in the July 2025 response) for the documents, explanation or supervisory review specified in the linked questions.
Miss E and Mr J allege that disputed order handling and continued enforcement, while the earlier N260 and its service evidence remain unproduced to them, formed a coordinated abuse of process intended to pressure Miss E. They seek investigation of alleged dishonest document handling and collusion; each person’s actual role is identified in the linked chronology and questions.
Miss E and Mr J allege fraudulent procurement and coordinated concealment of the authority used to pursue Miss E’s goods. They challenge Mark John Mayo’s enforcement application, Claire Louise Sandbrook’s registry account and Jo Copp’s handling of requests for the completed certificate.
Miss E and Mr J dispute the explanation that the TPDO changes were accidental recording errors and seek independent scrutiny of Jo Copp’s actions and their effect on enforcement. They allege deliberate manipulation; HMCTS is asked to establish the original decision, personal responsibilities and any relevant conflict.
Judicial personal-conduct complaints; questions about the proper route for assessing the recorded language and manner, distinct from an appeal against a decision
1 question
Start with this question · TPDO-11
Does the recorded language and manner warrant a personal-conduct investigation?
Miss E and Mr J allege that Torridge District Council’s assessment and subsequent response failed to protect her from recurring shooting disturbance and prolonged her suffering. They challenge Matthew Millichope’s 15 March 2024 conclusion and ask what reconsideration followed the video link sent to him on 29 March.
The record asks Mayo Media / British Dealer News — publisher management for the documents, explanation or supervisory review specified in the linked questions.
The record asks Mr Folland (neighbouring farmer identified in Miss E and Mr J’s account of the tractor collision) for the documents, explanation or supervisory review specified in the linked questions.
What company records stood behind the boundary evidence?
Miss E and Mr J connect the disputed utility email and plan to their allegation of a contrived expert report affecting their land. National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc is asked to account for its records, checks and any disclosure to the expert or those instructing him.
Identify what was requested and supplied, and whether Miss E’s executed agreement and plan were identified or provided.
The publication asks Zoë Yujnovich, as current Chief Executive of National Grid plc, to commission a review of the operating company’s BH68 record integrity, response handling and compliance with applicable standards. This is a proposed oversight request, not an allegation that she participated in or already knew of the disputed events.
Miss E and Mr J allege that the April 2025 plan was used to create a false impression that Mr Mayo held wayleave rights concerning BH68, and to mislead the court. They direct the allegation to Mr Mayo and, over the supply and description of the plan, to Nick Shackson and National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
The reply attributed to Amelia Skea says “your wayleave”, beneath a request naming BH67 and BH68. Mr J alleges possible knowing involvement by Ms Skea in misleading wording or failure to correct wording she knows was falsely attributed to her. He reports that neither pole’s agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family. The questions ask her and National Grid to authenticate the linked exchange and identify the instrument for each pole.
The family challenges National Grid’s handling of repeated requests to verify correspondence and identify the agreement supporting the claimed BH68 position. Miss E’s requests were followed by a referral, office visits and solicitor correspondence. Mr J says the substantive verification answers remain outstanding.
Miss E and Mr J accuse Peter Howard Arthur Jenkins and Rosalind June Jenkins of concealing material noise, dispute and conveyance-compliance problems in the sale of Lower Barley Hayes. They say truthful disclosure would have stopped the purchase and allege substantial resulting loss.
The record asks Peter Stapley (Principal Planning Officer, Torridge District Council, Bideford, Devon; identified in the 2025 planning record) for the documents, explanation or supervisory review specified in the linked questions.
Miss E and Mr J allege that requiring a fresh diary before allocating the renewed complaint failed to respond adequately to an existing history of noise and distress. Phil Gilbert is asked to explain his December 2024 handling and what protection followed.
The record asks Richard Lloyd Griffiths (District Judge, South West; appointed 30 January 2017) for the documents, explanation or supervisory review specified in the linked questions.
The record asks Richard Stanford CB, MBE (Chief Executive, Forestry Commission; Bristol correspondence office) for the documents, explanation or supervisory review specified in the linked questions.
Miss E and Mr J accuse Peter Howard Arthur Jenkins and Rosalind June Jenkins of concealing material noise, dispute and conveyance-compliance problems in the sale of Lower Barley Hayes. They say truthful disclosure would have stopped the purchase and allege substantial resulting loss.
Miss E and Mr J accuse Rosalind June Jenkins of knowingly misleading evidence to favour Mayo and protect the sellers from the consequences of non-disclosure. Miss E says Rosalind confirmed retained land above the bank on the telephone, later supported a stakes boundary in court, and then acknowledged a small planted upper area when challenged. She alleges a contrived narrative, not merely mistaken recollection.
The record asks Sarah Chappell (Conservation Officer, Torridge District Council, Bideford, Devon, in the 2024–2025 records) for the documents, explanation or supervisory review specified in the linked questions.
ShergroupShergroup · official group wordmarkImage source
Miss E and Mr J allege misleading accounts and concealment within the process used to obtain enforcement, and suspect fraudulent procurement. They connect Sandbrook’s written registry account and Shergroup Legal’s stated preparation role to the unnamed stamp, the wrong-office issue and the refusal to supply the certificate.
Miss E challenges continued enforcement warnings after sending the stay order and asks how the firm protected her while it processed the order. She seeks the actual receipt, allocation and hold records.
Mr J challenges the ethics of pursuing a pensioner’s possessions while the March costs schedule and claimed service remain disputed and unproduced to her. He calls on Claire Louise Sandbrook and Shergroup to show what they knew, what they checked and how they protected Miss E—not simply invoke their authority to enforce.
Miss E and Mr J allege misleading accounts and concealment within the process used to obtain enforcement, and suspect fraudulent procurement. They connect Sandbrook’s written registry account and Shergroup Legal’s stated preparation role to the unnamed stamp, the wrong-office issue and the refusal to supply the certificate.
Miss E challenges continued enforcement warnings after sending the stay order and asks how the firm protected her while it processed the order. She seeks the actual receipt, allocation and hold records.
Mr J requested professional indemnity insurance details to notify potential claims alleging fraudulent documentation. Cornwell’s reply named HDI Global and Browne Jacobson, but gave no policy number. The family questions whether the allegations and evidence reached the insurer in full and challenges the use of an intermediary without a complete notification record.
Mr J alleges a failure to discharge regulatory responsibility in the handling of detailed allegations against Cornwell and Seldons. He challenges the mismatch between the particularised material supplied and the decision not to investigate.
Miss E and Mr J allege that Torridge District Council’s assessment and subsequent response failed to protect her from recurring shooting disturbance and prolonged her suffering. They challenge Matthew Millichope’s 15 March 2024 conclusion and ask what reconsideration followed the video link sent to him on 29 March.
Miss E and Mr J allege that the Council’s response left her exposed to further disturbance. Ian McIver is asked to account for the monitoring and the relocation assurance he communicated, including what verified that it protected her home.
Miss E and Mr J allege that requiring a fresh diary before allocating the renewed complaint failed to respond adequately to an existing history of noise and distress. Phil Gilbert is asked to explain his December 2024 handling and what protection followed.
Miss E and Mr J allege collusion in a police–Council process shaped around Mayo’s account while their evidence was not sought for the notice-making decision. They challenge the independence of the assessment and the personal conduct attributed to Miss E.
Mr J alleges that an older photograph was used to support a misleading heritage/site-visit account, and challenges the consistency of the Council’s treatment of Mayo’s works and the family’s shed. Responsibility for authorship and approval is among the questions still to be resolved.
Miss E publicly challenged Dennis Venn’s impartiality and treatment of her evidence. The firm’s handling of that complaint is now a distinct accountability question.
The publication asks Zoë Yujnovich, as current Chief Executive of National Grid plc, to commission a review of the operating company’s BH68 record integrity, response handling and compliance with applicable standards. This is a proposed oversight request, not an allegation that she participated in or already knew of the disputed events.
No matching record. Try another name or clear the filters.
Potential consequences · England and Wales
Serious allegations require specific legal tests.
The categories below explain what would need to be established. A proposed question is not an unanswered delivered request; silence is recorded in the response history, not treated as proof of criminal intent.
Civil malicious falsehood / slander of title
A claim requires a false publication and malice. Slander of title concerns false disparagement of title, not every planning dispute. Qualifying written publications may engage section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952 without proof of actual loss for liability, but substantial compensation requires loss actually caused. The precise words, knowledge, audience and financial consequence must be established.
Sections 1, 3 and 7 require a qualifying course of conduct and knowledge, actual or assessed objectively, that it amounts to harassment. The statutory exceptions and full context matter. Civil remedies can include an injunction and damages for resulting anxiety and financial loss. Two unwelcome events alone do not establish the necessary threshold.
Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 requires an unwarranted demand with menaces, made with a view to gain or intent to cause loss. The maker’s beliefs about reasonable grounds and proper use of menaces matter. Litigation, enforcement, a conditional fee or missing payment receipts alone do not establish these elements.
Statutory-noise investigation and abatement duties
Section 79 requires reasonably practicable investigation of a resident’s statutory-nuisance complaint. Section 80 requires an abatement notice when the Council is satisfied a nuisance exists or is likely to occur or recur, subject to the limited seven-day informal-action provision for premises noise. The issue is whether the investigation and decision lawfully assessed the actual evidence and recurrence, not whether every noise complaint automatically requires a notice.
The Ombudsman can examine faults in a Council’s noise investigation and recommend corrective action or a financial remedy for resulting injustice. Court-awarded damages require a separate legal basis and proof of the loss caused; failure to exercise a protective statutory power does not automatically establish negligence or personal officer liability. See the linked case-specific explanation and legal sources.
An actionable false representation inducing a purchase may support rescission or damages. Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 addresses damages and a defence based on reasonable grounds for belief in truth. Identify the representation, the maker, reliance, loss and the remedy requirements. Civil liability is distinct from criminal fraud.
BSB Core Duties CD1, CD3 and CD4 protect justice, honesty, integrity and independence. Rules rC3, rC6 and rC7 address misleading the court and improper advocacy. Assess the actual conduct, knowledge and submissions under the edition in force at the time; representing a disputed case or receiving a warning does not itself establish misconduct.
Civil Practice Direction 1A requires attention to vulnerability affecting participation and evidence, with early identification and proportionate measures. The enquiry is what was before the court, what assessment and directions followed, and whether the party could participate effectively. It does not establish an entitlement to a particular merits outcome or a finding of personal judicial misconduct.
CPR 35.3 makes the expert’s duty to the court overriding. PD35 paragraphs 2.1–2.4 require independent, objective opinions, consideration of adverse material facts and appropriate qualifications for insufficient information. Compliance and evidential weight are distinct from criminal liability.
Section 2 requires a dishonest false representation, knowledge that it is or might be untrue or misleading, and an intention to obtain money or property or cause financial/property loss or a risk of loss.
Requires an act or series of acts tending and intended to pervert an existing course of public justice. Civil proceedings are included. Both the conduct and the intention must be established.
Requires a lawfully sworn witness in judicial proceedings wilfully making a material statement known to be false or not believed true. The exact testimony, falsity, knowledge and required corroboration matter.
CPR 32.14 concerns making or causing to be made a false statement in a document prepared in anticipation of or during proceedings, verified by a statement of truth, without an honest belief in its truth. It is not automatically perjury.
Requires a public officer acting as such, wilful neglect or misconduct serious enough to abuse public trust, and no reasonable excuse or justification. An erroneous decision or non-response alone does not establish the offence.
The SRA Code addresses unfair advantage (1.2), misleading conduct (1.4), evidence misuse or tampering (2.1), improper influence on evidence (2.2), and properly arguable assertions (2.4). These are professional standards, not criminal charges.
The SRA Firms Code requires effective compliance systems and accountability for work (2.1–2.3), effective supervision (4.4), incorporated evidence duties (7.1), and management responsibility for compliance (8.1). The firm’s responsibilities are distinct from an individual solicitor’s conduct.
Core sources checked 24 September 2026; statutory-noise and redress sources checked 2 October 2026. The applicable law and professional rules must be assessed at the date of the alleged conduct.
Address the allegation. Produce the record.
Identify the issue number, say what you accept or dispute, and provide the document and passage supporting your answer. An acknowledgement, denial and document-supported rebuttal are recorded distinctly.
The 6 and 7 May 2026 letters before action and their evidence are now available as indexed downloads, checked against the original sent attachments. The source hub also records Geldards’ denial and Skea’s September representation letter, distinguishing those replies from the authentication and contractual-record questions.
A pensioner in tears. Noise recorded inside her home. Read the direct challenge to Timothy Edmund Walsh’s findings in the supplied transcript, Torridge’s response and the fourteen demands for answers.
