An unanswered question can remain with a person long after a file has closed. A letter may have been sent. A complaint may have reached its conclusion. Yet the person at the centre of it may still be unable to understand how a decision was reached, which evidence was considered, or why a particular account was accepted.
The Unanswered Record exists to examine concerns of public importance. We listen to those affected, examine the available material and ask questions that can be answered with reference to the record.
The expense and difficulty of pursuing a dispute can leave people struggling to make their concerns understood. Careful journalism can give those concerns an audience and place the documents behind them within reach of readers.
The method is part of the story.
A document has a date, an author, a purpose and a context. A sentence can change meaning when separated from the paragraph around it. A later letter may explain an earlier one. An answer may be incomplete, or it may resolve the question entirely.
Our reporting will identify the sources it relies on, distinguish accounts from established findings and include material responses. Where the evidence changes our understanding, the reporting should change with it.
We begin with one case and a manageable body of documents. Each article can stand on its own, while remaining connected to the wider case. Readers will be able to move from the reporting to the supporting record and back again.
A philosophical touchstone
Honour must answer to principle.
“When a country is ill-governed, riches and honour are things to be ashamed of.”
The passage contrasts standing in a well-governed country with distinction under bad government. For The Unanswered Record, its challenge is to judge authority by its conduct, not its honours.
Conscience before applause.
Public confidence is sustained by explanations that can be examined. The exercise of authority brings responsibilities: to act carefully, to keep an accurate record, and to account for decisions that affect other people.
Better an unwelcome truth
than a comfortable injustice.
That is the principle on which The Unanswered Record begins.
The reporting record
What changed in this article.
— The opening editorial was expanded with the publication’s principles and a sourced Confucius passage.
Substantive additions and corrections will be recorded here. The full case can be followed through Latest developments.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Pole BH68
The first case: questions from the documents
These questions arise from the supplied documents. The response notes describe that bundle, not all possible correspondence or the position today.
- Nick Shackson (Estates Specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc; Barnstaple, North Devon, in the 2024 correspondence) · Estates Specialist · National Grid
Did you personally draw the plan sent to Mark John Mayo on 28 April 2025? If not, who prepared it?
claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon · Case identity and source record
Why this matters Traceability
A plan should be traceable to its author and source material. That allows its reliability and limitations to be checked. Identify who prepared the plan, as well as who sent it.
Miss E asked about personal authorship on 13 February 2026. The earlier reply confirms sending the plan, which is a different point. No direct answer to the later authorship question appears in the supplied bundle.
Sources: B, pp. 2–3BH68-01 · No direct answer in supplied record · View question record ↗
- Nick Shackson · Estates Specialist · National Grid
Which apparatus and which title did “the apparatus on your title” refer to? What supported that wording, and how does it relate to your later description, “not any particular title”? Did you carry out the Bodmin records check you proposed on 13 March 2025 before sending the April plan? If so, what did it establish? Was this intended as the plan accompanying a particular wayleave agreement? What could it establish about BH68, and what could it not establish? Identify any agreement to which it was attached. Who requested the plan, for what stated purpose, and what agreement was it intended to accompany? Produce the dated request and instructions. What was a general-area map intended to establish about Mr Mayo’s particular rights? Identify the registered title number, the apparatus references intended and the title or survey records checked before the 28 April 2025 email. What did the Bodmin records check promised on 13 March establish about Miss E’s agreement? Was the original title description maintained, corrected or withdrawn after the 10 February 2026 explanation, and who received any correction? Produce the dated records.
Why this matters Precision
A general apparatus map and a statement about a particular title do not necessarily establish the same thing. Integrity requires the wording to match what the underlying records can support, so those relying on it understand its limits.
The 13 February request asked which apparatus the phrase meant. The 24 February follow-up says this remained unanswered. The February reply explains that the map displayed a general area; the available copies contain no direct answer identifying the apparatus intended by the earlier wording.
Sources: C, p. 2 · B, pp. 1–5, 8 · D, pp. 4–5 · B, pp. 2–3, 7–8 · C, pp. 1–2 · D, pp. 1–5BH68-02 · No direct answer in supplied record · View question record ↗
- National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · via Geldards LLP, the instructed firm, and Howard Mark Hacking (professionally Mark Hacking; solicitor and partner, Geldards LLP, Nottingham; individual SRA 156301), its named contact
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? When and why were the 1963 and 1975 instruments first obtained and relied on, and what explains their addition to the 24 October 2025 schedule? For the 1963 and 1975 instruments now relied on, identify the executed agreement, plan, apparatus, original land and the provision or transaction connecting the asserted right to Mr Mayo. Map that chain through the subdivisions and ownership changes described by the family. Does “transferred” refer to the operator’s apparatus/access rights, a payment entitlement, or a right claimed personally by Mr Mayo? Which conveyancing-file pages support it? Reconcile that account with PCC’s January 2024 predecessor letter and Miss E’s June 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.
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.
Sources: A, pp. 1, 4–6 · B, pp. 5–7 · D, pp. 3–5 · E, p. 3 · J, pp. 1–3 · T8, historic agreements, conveyancing disclosure and payment comparisonBH68-03 · Clarification not found in supplied record · View question record ↗
- Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell (SRA 664668; solicitor and partner, Seldons LLP, Bideford, Devon) / Seldons Solicitors · concerning Mr Mayo’s representation described in the correspondence · Bideford, Devon, United Kingdom
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. The family alleges that the plan was used to fill the gap exposed by its demand for the underlying agreement and associated plan. What instructions or requests led to obtaining it, and which executed instrument did you say it belonged to? The supplied forwarding header records Mr Mayo sending Shackson’s email to Cornwell on 16 October 2025. Identify the precise court exhibit and assertion it supported. When did you receive Shackson’s later general-area explanation, and where was that qualification or any correction put before the court? Mr J now reports that the email and map were supplied to Dennis Venn for a boundary survey without Miss E’s agreement and linked plan 83920/SI. What was supplied, by whom and when? Produce the instructions and document index. If her agreement and plan were omitted, why? Once Shackson’s later general-area qualification was available, was it passed to the surveyor and the court? What underlying instrument connected the exchange attributed to Skea and Shackson’s plan to the same claimed BH68 entitlement? Identify precisely what each was relied on to prove and how that case addressed Miss E’s agreement, plan and pole-location evidence.
Why this matters Fair presentation
On Mr J’s account, the plan was relied upon in court despite not being suitable as a wayleave-agreement plan. The integrity issue is the gap between what a document was presented as proving and what it could support. Producing the filing, the agreement and the explanation for the late introduction would allow that gap to be tested. Identify the agreement’s terms, parties and scope.
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.
Sources: C, pp. 1–2 · B, pp. 2–7 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, p. 7 · L, pp. 2, 5 · C, p. 2, forwarding header · B, pp. 2–3, later explanation - Amelia Skea (National Grid Wayleave Services; Bodmin, Cornwall, in the attributed April 2024 email signature) · Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office · National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc
Did you send the 15 April 2024 message saying “Your wayleave will be paid annually in advance in September” in response to the displayed 9 April request naming BH67 and BH68? Was BH68 in the email National Grid actually received? Produce the retained request, reply, full headers and attachments. For each pole, identify the agreement or other instrument behind “your wayleave” and the record linked to reference 2624773. If any displayed wording is not what you received or sent, identify it, when you became aware of it and what correction or notification followed. Miss E’s verification requests began in February 2025: why do the supplied replies still contain no authentication answer? If you have answered, identify the dated reply. If you cannot verify the exchange, explain what prevents you, who is checking it and when an answer will be provided. Who took ownership of the 10 March 2025 referral, what retained records were examined and where is the written outcome? What explains the absence of an authentication answer after the 7 May 2026 formal notice was acknowledged by Geldards? Can National Grid confirm whether it stands behind the exact wording relied on, separately from its denial of legal liability?
Why this matters Authenticity
The reply can be read as confirming the request about two named poles. If the request was altered, or the reply concerned different records, the apparent confirmation could convey a materially different meaning. Authenticating both sides of the exchange and identifying the instrument for each pole tests that connection directly.
By 25 September 2026, 576 days had passed since the initial verification request and 141 days since the letter before action. Miss E and Mr J regard the absence of a substantive authentication answer as a serious, non-innocent omission. The September replies reviewed deny a valid claim and confirm representation and service arrangements, but do not authenticate the disputed exchange or identify the supporting BH68 instrument.
Sources: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 2–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20BH68-05 · Authentication not found in supplied record · View question record ↗
- National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · concerning the payment-record update attributed to Amelia Skea · South West Wayleave Records, Bodmin
Which agreement or other instrument did “your wayleave” refer to, for BH67 and for BH68? Identify the land, apparatus and recipient linked to reference 2624773. What payment records were updated, by whom and on what documents? Produce the archived plan and completion letter referred to in the April 2024 request and explain whether the stated £25 annual amount concerned one pole, both poles or different apparatus. How does that position relate to Miss E’s June 2024 BH68 agreement, its signed plan, 14-year term and one-off £2,000 payment provision? PCC’s 1 July 2024 letter says it enclosed a £2,000 cheque. For each relevant ledger entry, identify the payee’s capacity, agreement and asset references, payment category and covered period. Who authorised any change, and how did you address overlapping apparatus or land rights, apportionment, cancellation or correction? Provide the reconciliation without private banking details. Identify the engineering classification of each asset and the tariff or negotiated valuation actually applied. Show any allocation between BH67, BH68, 35-2381-1, stays and other equipment, and identify any payment or contractual requirement attributable to voltage, equipment, access or safety obligations. The family raised the financial comparison in its October 2025 rebuttal, page 7, and oral summary, pages 8 and 11: where is that particular objection answered?
Why this matters Documentary basis
An assertion that payment records were changed should be traceable to the documents and apparatus it concerns. Integrity requires explaining whether the records describe the same pole and rights, rather than treating an administrative payment entry as proof of an agreement or of the disputed boundary.
The April 2024 printout predates the June agreement. Identify exactly what was updated, the documents supporting the change and how the later agreement relates to it. The supplied replies leave that comparison unresolved.
Sources: F, pp. 1–2 · A, pp. 4–6 · G, pp. 3–5 · H, pp. 2–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · K, p. 7, section 6 · L, pp. 8 and 11 · F, published annotated pages · T8, seven-page Owner Wayleave Consent copy, p. 7BH68-06 · Supporting update records not supplied · View question record ↗
- Mark Hacking / Geldards LLP · for National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Nottingham office
On 24 April 2026 you said you were instructed that earlier requests “were dealt with”. Which dated reply answered Miss E’s questions about the genuine incoming message, the corresponding reply and the BH67/BH68 records? On 7 May you acknowledged the forwarded letter before action to Amelia Skea and its documents, and directed future correspondence through you. Who is responsible for the authentication check, what original records have been examined and where is the written outcome? Separately, where is the substantive response you promised to the recent Shackson correspondence? Produce the answers and supporting records. If any point remains unresolved, explain the obstacle, the person responsible and the date for an answer. In light of the 8 September denial and the 9–10 September representation and service letters, who owns the factual verification work? What prevents National Grid from identifying an original message and its supporting agreement through its instructed representatives?
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.
The replies reviewed leave the family’s central request unresolved: identify the authentic exchange and the particular records supporting the claimed BH68 position. Proposed follow-up—not yet sent.
Sources: G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3 - Luke Cornwell / Seldons Solicitors · Bideford, Devon, United Kingdom
The 31 January 2025 header names you as both sender and recipient: why did you self-forward the exchange attributed to Amelia Skea and Mr Mayo? The family’s Annex E specifically alleges insertion of BH68 into correspondence originally about BH67. Was the phrase “The pole numbers are BH67 and BH68” present in the message received from your source? Produce that message and the native exchange, including attachments, and compare them with the self-forwarded and court-filed versions. Identify every addition, removal or change, who made it and when. If you removed material on privilege grounds, identify the dated written notice or disclosure-list entry under CPR 31.19, its recipients and the grounds for withholding. Where is the unaltered original preserved under PD 31B paragraph 35? If no notice exists, explain why and identify any relevant direction. Paragraph 42 of the second amended claim relies on MJM2 pages 20–25: what checks supported that verified assertion? Identify the first redaction explanation and any hearing record addressing Mr J’s reported objection. Mr J says the emails were relied upon while the requested agreement and Ms Skea’s authentication remained outstanding: what checks supported that reliance, and which agreement supported the claimed BH68 rights? Provide the dated explanation and version comparison with appropriate protection for genuinely confidential information. Your second 24 October email cites item 5 as evidence of transfer; the schedule labels it National Grid Wayleave Payments. What within that item identifies BH68 and establishes the claimed transfer, and how does it connect to the 1963 and 1975 instruments?
Why this matters Document provenance
The family’s concern is that the disputed copy carried the weight of an agreement they say was never produced, without a checkable confirmation from the attributed sender. The integrity test connects provenance, meaning and reliance: which words were actually sent, what changed, what verified them and what justified the use made of them in court?
Mr J’s concern is cumulative: no executed BH68 agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family, the attributed sender has not provided the authentication they seek, and the court copy was self-forwarded with editing explained only after challenge, according to his account. He alleges these connected gaps raise serious doubts about the email’s authenticity and its use as evidence. This question asks Mr Cornwell to address that connection directly: identify the checks, produce the originals and agreement, and account for each change and its disclosure.
Sources: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 3–5 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · T, recorded 24 October replies and T7: paragraph 42, MJM2 and redaction rules · T8, 24 October transfer email and revised schedule - National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Chief Executive’s Office / executive review
Is this handling of a wayleave-holder’s verification requests consistent with National Grid’s standards? Identify who took responsibility after the February and March 2025 requests, the referral and the April 2026 office visits. Who checked the disputed emails and agreement records, what did they conclude, and where is the written outcome? Will a senior officer review BH68-03, BH68-05 and BH68-06, explain any unresolved delay and give a date for a document-supported response?
Why this matters Corporate responsibility
Responsibility should remain traceable when a wayleave-holder’s concern passes between departments and external solicitors. Integrity requires a checkable outcome: who investigated, which records they examined and what answer the company stands behind.
Identify a responsible senior officer, the checks performed, their written outcome and the route to completing any unresolved work. Mr J reports that the substantive verification answers remain outstanding; this register does not mark the new executive question as overdue.
Sources: G, pp. 1–5 · D, pp. 1–3 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 - Seldons LLP / Seldons Solicitors · managing partner or professional-standards partner · Bideford
Seldons’ letter of 28 October 2025 acknowledges the 27 October correspondence and attachments and reserves the firm’s position. What action followed that notice? Who was responsible, which records were preserved and where is the substantive review outcome? Cornwell had rejected the tampering allegations on 24 October and supplied copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally: what comparison established that their content matched the originals? Will a partner identify the received, self-forwarded and court-filed versions, each change, the written withholding notice and grounds under CPR 31.19, and the preserved original under PD 31B paragraph 35? Who checked the version relied on in paragraph 42 of the amended claim? Identify the first redaction explanation and any response to the reported objection in court. Was verification sought directly from Amelia Skea or National Grid? Identify the supporting record and any correction required. Does the firm adopt the denial sent from Cornwell’s account under the Seldons LLP signature, and on what documented assessment? Who reviewed the allegations about his own conduct and the firm’s responsibilities? Was the later reservation a holding response; if so, where is the concluded, reasoned response? Who authorised him to respond for the firm on allegations about his own conduct? What assessment addressed any conflict between defending him, protecting the firm and advising Mr Mayo?
Why this matters Evidence stewardship
A firm-level answer should explain how evidence bearing its solicitor’s name was handled and checked. The integrity test is whether the disclosed copy preserved the original meaning and made its changes traceable, including the action taken if a problem is found.
The firm is asked for its own position, the supervision record, a protected version comparison and any correction needed. Identify each change and explain its effect on the meaning of the message supplied.
Sources: F, pp. 1–2 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · T, notice, acknowledgement, earlier denial and T7: primary court record - Mark John Mayo · response may be provided through his representative
Which agreement or other instrument do you rely on for rights concerning BH68? Identify its date, parties, plan, apparatus and the land to which it applies. If you rely on an older agreement rather than one in your name, identify the record establishing its continued application to your land. Explain how that position relates to Miss E’s signed June 2024 agreement. If the family has misstated your position, provide the precise correction and supporting document. Did your 9 April 2024 email contain the words “The pole numbers are BH67 and BH68” as shown in the disputed copy? Provide your sent message, its attachments and the reply you received, and identify the agreement or other instrument relating to each pole. Identify the field’s preceding owners and the provision or transaction by which any BH68 rights or payment entitlement passed to you. Which pages in the disclosed conveyancing file prove that chain? If no predecessor wayleave for BH68 is relied on, identify the alternative basis. How do the historic instruments and payment item cited on 24 October support that basis?
Why this matters A checkable claim
A claim about particular land and apparatus should identify the instrument and reasoning that support it. Naming the agreement and its scope lets readers compare competing accounts against documents rather than implications.
Identify the instrument, its scope and the basis on which it is said to apply. The question is not whether any historic documents exist, but which document supports the particular BH68 position now relied upon.
Sources: A, pp. 4–6 · B, pp. 5–7 · C, p. 2 · D, pp. 3–5 · F, pp. 1–2 · M, pp. 19–20 · T8, conveyancing disclosure, historic agreements and transfer email - Zoë Yujnovich (Chief Executive, National Grid plc, since November 2025; group executive office in London) · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Which employee-conduct, customer-communication, wayleave-record, complaint and document-integrity policies applied to the identified BH68 events during 2024–2026? Provide the policy titles, effective dates and relevant provisions, identifying the responsible National Grid legal entity. Which requirements applied to external solicitors, and through what instruction or contractual arrangement? If a document cannot be shared in full, provide the applicable provisions and explain the restriction.
Why this matters Standards that can be tested
A company’s public commitments should lead to identifiable standards against which particular conduct can be reviewed—not a general assurance that leaves the substance unchecked.
Identify the actual standard, version and responsible entity before assessing compliance. Website terms of use are not a substitute for the rules governing staff and case handling.
Sources: S, published standards and scope · A, pp. 4–6 · G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3 - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Will you appoint a reviewer not previously involved in the disputed handling, with authority to obtain the relevant records and require corrections? Name the responsible office, provide a case reference and a secure route for the indexed correspondence and letters before action. Confirm preservation of original emails, headers, attachments, plans and version histories. Which route will examine authenticity and staff conduct if the wayleave-rights dispute is being handled through legal proceedings?
Why this matters Accountable review
A concern passed between staff, departments and solicitors needs an identifiable owner able to reach the underlying records and give a reasoned outcome.
Confirm a responsible reviewer, remit, secure delivery channel and preservation arrangements. The proposed internal review is not represented as an externally independent inquiry.
Sources: S, ethics and wayleave-complaint scope · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Will the review authenticate the complete BH67/BH68 exchange attributed to Amelia Skea against National Grid’s originals, including headers and attachments, and explain any difference from the self-forwarded copy? Identify the instrument, parties, land and apparatus supporting “your wayleave” for each pole, and reconcile that position with Miss E’s signed June 2024 BH68 agreement. What record supported the April 2025 plan’s “on your title” wording, given Mr Shackson’s later general-area explanation? What did Shackson’s promised March 2025 records check establish about Miss E’s agreement before he used that title wording? Was the description maintained, corrected or withdrawn, and were people relying on it notified? Examine the two representations together: did the attributed exchange and title wording support the same claimed BH68 entitlement, and which identifiable records substantiate that connection? Who knew about Miss E’s agreement and plan 83920/SI, who checked the competing position, and who authorised the representations? If either was inaccurate, identify the recipients, reliance and correction.
Why this matters Traceable evidence
The agreement, email and plan must be connected by records that can be checked. An executive assurance cannot replace authentication of the very material in dispute.
Provide a source-backed comparison: authentic company message, underlying instrument, relevant pole and land, and the purpose and limits of the plan. Identify any correction rather than relying on the disputed wording to verify itself.
Sources: A, pp. 4–6 · B, pp. 2–8 · C, p. 2 · F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 1–5 · S, record-integrity standards - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Which substantive authentication and agreement issues raised in the documented February–March 2025 correspondence remain unresolved, and why? For each point, identify the request, responsible person, checks made and dated answer with its supporting document. Account for the 10 March referral, the May 2026 letters before action and the 7 May promise of a substantive response concerning Mr Shackson. If the company considers the questions answered, show exactly where—not merely that correspondence took place. The reviewed 8–10 September correspondence denies a valid claim and confirms representation and service arrangements. Where does National Grid answer the separate factual question: is the reproduced email genuine, complete and unaltered, and what agreement supports its words?
Why this matters An answer is more than an acknowledgement
Miss E and Mr J need to verify the records affecting their rights. Beyond the recorded referrals and acknowledgements, where are the supporting agreement and authenticated email?
Produce a question-by-question response schedule and explain any unresolved delay. The documented authentication request dates from 26 February 2025, with Ms Skea visibly copied on 7 March; this is not described as two years without any reply.
Sources: G, pp. 1–5 · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, customer-service and complaints standards - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Who held responsibility for checking Amelia Skea’s and Nick Shackson’s handling of the disputed records and the ensuing requests? Identify the non-privileged scope of Geldards LLP’s role, who retained complaint ownership after referral to the firm, and what process ensured the factual questions were investigated and answered. If information is withheld, identify the category and reason, and what non-privileged factual outcome can still be provided.
Why this matters Responsibility survives referral
Use of external advisers should leave the company able to explain who owns a concern and which factual checks underpin its response.
Identify responsibility, the review undertaken and the factual position the company stands behind. Do not treat a referral to legal representatives as a substitute for identifying how the record-integrity concern is addressed.
Sources: D, pp. 1–5 · E, p. 3 · G, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, policy applicability - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Will you provide a dated written outcome against each question, setting out the records examined, applicable standards and findings, and identifying any corrections required? Explain the relevant agreement terms, notice provisions, contractual protections and review or escalation routes for Miss E. Give a realistic completion date and arrangements for progress updates. Where a point cannot be resolved, identify the missing record and the steps being taken to obtain it.
Why this matters A checkable conclusion
Give Miss E and Mr J a written account of what was checked, the findings and any resulting changes. The result should answer the material questions, not simply close the correspondence.
The response sought is a dated outcome that can be compared with the source material, with an explanation of unresolved points and any action required. A response deadline will be recorded only after a request is actually sent.
Sources: A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, executive and company standards
A place for the answer
Have something to add?
National Grid, Mr Shackson, Ms Skea, Mr Mayo, Seldons Solicitors, Geldards LLP, or any other party mentioned: if you have information, documents, a correction or a response, please contact us. Identify the article and question you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the record.
Contact the editorial desktheunansweredrecord@gmail.com
Stay with the story
Follow the investigation
as the record develops.
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.