The supporting record
Documents & source notes.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152
Read the reporting. Understand its sources.
Seventeen distinct PDFs support the reviewed Pole BH68 reporting, including the formal notices and referral request. Each entry opens a substantive source note. Original PDFs will be added as publication copies become available.
TP01–TP16 · Planning & heritage
The Torridge planning source record
A dated index of the shed advice, design and heritage objections, photograph provenance and Council roles, planning-history replies, access-warning and forestry correspondence, later decisions, family accounts and sale-related photograph.
Source T · Version and response review
Annex E, Seldons’ replies and later outcomes
The document versions, October notice and acknowledgement, express denial, SRA decision and July trial order.
Forestry and access: the source record
Dates and page references for the illustrated investigation.
Final notice to Paul Mitchell
Designated Civil Judge for Cornwall, Devon and Dorset; Exeter Combined Court Centre
29 April 2026: the request for the N260, filing and service records, and reasons.
Copies reviewed · 12–13 September 2026
We reviewed 17 distinct PDFs, 129 pages. Duplicate copies are indexed once. Five additional documents were reviewed on 13 September; the resupplied attributed exchange was re-examined and is identical to Document F already indexed. Each entry identifies its review date.
The signed wayleave agreement
The 2024 contractual documents relied upon by Miss E, including a signed plan identifying Pole BH68.
The questions and the replies
The exchanges about the plan, payment records and wayleaves, including substantive replies and two later requests for clarification.
The April 2025 plan and email
The map and reproduced 28 April 2025 email containing the phrase ‘showing the apparatus on your title’.
The 6 May 2026 letter before action addressed to Nick Shackson
Estates Specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc; Barnstaple, North Devon, in the 2024 correspondence
The family’s 6 May 2026 account of its concerns and its requests for explanations and supporting records.
The covering email and representation reply
The family’s covering email and a reproduced response confirming that National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc had instructed Geldards LLP; the email also refers to correspondence with Howard Mark Hacking (professionally Mark Hacking; solicitor and partner, Geldards LLP, Nottingham; individual SRA 156301) of Geldards.
The April 2024 correspondence attributed to Amelia Skea and Mark John Mayo
National Grid Wayleave Services; Bodmin, Cornwall, in the attributed April 2024 email signature
claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon
A disputed printed exchange referring to BH67 and BH68, a payment-record update, and supporting attachments that are not included in this copy.
The verification requests and the March 2025 referral
Miss E’s authentication and payment-record questions, a follow-up copying Amelia Skea, and a recorded referral to Nigel Merrifield (National Grid Estates Specialist named in the March 2025 referral correspondence).
The 7 May 2026 letter before action addressed to Amelia Skea
The family’s allegations and renewed requests for authentication, records and an explanation of the apparent BH68 position.
The email transmitting the Skea letter and supporting documents
The 7 May 2026 covering email lists the letter, agreement and disputed correspondence as attachments and names corporate copied recipients.
Geldards’ April and May 2026 replies
Mark Hacking’s replies about NGED’s position, the disputed status of earlier requests, receipt of the Skea letter and routing of further correspondence.
October 2025: the defendant’s rebuttal to the claimant’s reply
The defendant’s written challenge to the National Grid correspondence, including allegations of editing and a retrospective redaction explanation.
October 2025: the summary of oral argument for the strike-out hearing
The written oral-argument summary for the 14 October 2025 hearing at Barnstaple County Court, including the defendant’s editing and redaction allegations.
Annex E: the particularised allegation of email insertion and evidential manipulation
The expanded Annex E alleges insertion of BH68 into correspondence originally about BH67, reliance on that material and omission of Miss E’s executed documents from expert instructions.
27 October 2025: notice to Luke Cornwell and Seldons, with a demand to preserve originals
An email addressed to Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell (SRA 664668; solicitor and partner, Seldons LLP, Bideford, Devon) and Seldons expressly raises personal and firm-level allegations and asks for preservation of originals, metadata and related records.
26 October 2025: Annex J-2 challenges the email, disclosure history and claimed transfer
Mr J’s warning challenges the alleged email alterations, newly listed historic agreements and the basis on which the claimed wayleave transfer was being advanced.
25–26 October 2025: Annex J-1 demands the underlying wayleave documents
The family’s notice alleges that BH68 was inserted into fabricated correspondence and demands authentic supporting documents rather than disclosure lists alone.
29 October 2025: the family’s referral request addressed to the CPS
An outgoing email to CPS mailboxes alleges insertion of BH68 into National Grid correspondence and requests assessment and coordination with the SRA.
Publication copies
These notes describe the source material. They are not reproductions of the original documents. No original source PDF has been uploaded to this draft.
S · Public policy sources
National Grid’s leadership, ethics and service standards
The official sources behind the six proposed executive-review questions, with the wayleave-complaint distinction and policy dates explained.
Statement signed and emailed 19 August 2026
Read Mr J’s eight-page statement
The challenge connects the pleadings, joinder, trial fee, CCTV, felling, conveyance safeguards, BH68, boundary, purchase records and costs. Read all eight source pages and follow the ten specific questions.
Source WRE · Working rebuttal
Miss E’s judgment-error schedule.
A selected public summary of the 105-page working document, with page and item references. The private drafting file is not published.
Source EFA · Court-circulated sealed appeal copy
Miss E’s signed notice and eight grounds.
The 17 August HMCTS email supplied the sealed appeal copy, KA-2026-BRS-000028. Read the dated record and source-page references.
Source IS · Orders, appeal grounds and letters
The independent-scrutiny record.
Read the five protective appeal grounds, the full 22-page response, the September N24 and the correspondence extracts.
The CPN appeal record
The 103-page bundle, the continuation and the key correspondence images.
New evidence branch / 25 September 2026
The recovered certificate. The registry contradiction.
See the N293A and its seal, compare Sandbrook’s account with Dagnall’s order, and examine the different interest-start wording. Fourteen direct questions address the submission, certification and disclosure record.
BH68 / Read the letters and the evidence
What was put to Shackson and Skea?
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.
Download the letters, examine the evidence and follow the replies →
Venn, R4/R5 and the instructions
Source references, original January attachments and receipt history →
Annex E / New document comparison
The £120,000 field purchase: who issued the statements?
Compare the letterheaded invoice with both completion statements. Follow the 12 March–5 April payment sequence, the source-email question and the records needed to authenticate the transaction.
Bank-record challenge: the address, source copy and ledger verification → · See the documents → · Read the named questions →
Miss E’s nine-page letter to Matthew Millichope
Read the full letter sent 29 March 2024, alongside twelve source notes covering the diary, monitoring, Council replies and accompanying video. The contradictions and direct questions
Jenkins sale-disclosure record
The 2023 questionnaire, partial TA6, 2024 objections, March 2025 statement and June–July letter-before-action correspondence.
The sale warning and withdrawal correspondence
13–24 September 2026: notice, agent feedback, withdrawal and Council complaint
The decisions · The objections · The source letters
Disclosure refused. Transfer refused. Why retain the same judge?
Read the three decisions in Blohm’s enforcement-related order beside Miss E’s challenge, her original and renewed transfer letters, and ten named questions. Follow the separate Walsh appeal without losing the procedural context.
Start with the three decisions · Order beside objections · Download both transfer letters
Before the trial · Before the later appeals
She spoke plainly. Where is the court’s answer?
On 9 January 2026, Miss E told the court that the double standards she was experiencing were “shocking and wholly unusual”. Mr J stood behind her the next day. They state that the court neither answered, investigated nor denied her allegations.
Read her own words alongside the separate correspondence describing pain, disrupted sleep and the burden of preparing a case—and support her demand for disclosure, independent scrutiny and fair treatment.
Her words, the human cost and the full context · Download the six-page email exchange · Support her demand for answers