Investigations in the public interestEvidence. Enquiry. Accountability.
The Documents / A

Source note · Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152

The signed wayleave agreement

The 2024 contractual documents relied upon by Miss E, including a signed plan identifying Pole BH68.

AAgreement & accompanying letters6 PDF pagesSupplied PDF copy reviewed · 12 September 2026

What is in the file

The Unanswered Record has examined all 6 pages in this supplied PDF copy. Page references below refer to that copy.

The supplied copy contains three accompanying letters from 2024, an agreement naming Miss E as the contracting party, and an associated plan.

  • Page 4: the wayleave consent and its stated term.
  • Page 5: the payment provision and signatures.
  • Page 6: the signed plan, including the BH68 label.

Names in this record. The signed agreement names National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc and identifies Property Compensation Consultants Limited as agent. Robert Hurst is the printed signatory of the initial agent letter, dated 10 January 2024. The accompanying letters on pages 2–3 use the West Midlands regional name. These are distinct descriptions in the documents, not a finding of wrongdoing.

The earlier-owner and payment records

On page 1, PCC’s 10 January 2024 letter says it previously corresponded with the former owners and that any agreement for this property in their names would have expired. That is PCC’s statement about this property, not a universal rule about transfer of every wayleave.

Pages 4–5 specify a 14-year term and a one-off £2,000 payment. The receipted invoice mentioned in PCC’s letter on page 3 concerns PCC’s fees; it is not itself a receipt for National Grid’s £2,000 payment. These copies do not establish repeated £2,000 payments on renewal.

Its relevance

The agreement and attached plan provide context for the family’s requests for an explanation of the apparatus and the rights being discussed. They show the documentation on which Miss E relies.

This note does not treat the plan as a judicial determination of land ownership or a disputed boundary. Nor does the existence of a signed plan establish who produced a different map supplied in later correspondence.

Publication status

The original PDF is retained outside this website. This source note summarises the supplied copy and does not replace the document itself. A publication copy has not yet been prepared.

Read the related article

The fuller payment record

The seven-page Owner Wayleave Consent copy reviewed on 19 September also contains PCC’s letter of 1 July 2024 stating that it enclosed a £2,000 cheque. Read the dated agreement and payment comparison →

The plan now shown in the article

The publication image reproduces physical page 6 (bundle page 16) of the six-page Appendix A – Executed Wayleave Agreement (Pole BH68) supplied for review. It is rotated into its readable landscape orientation. Only the owner’s signature and handwritten reference are covered; no boundary, pole, line or legend has been drawn or moved.

Drawing 83920/SI bears a drawing date of 28 March 2024 and a signature date of 4 June 2024. The agreement defines the property by its red edge. The plan labels that edge “Property boundary” and identifies 35BH68 and 35-2381-1; it does not label the stock fence. The fence identification, decades-long absence of dispute and alleged concealment motive are the family’s account supplied on 19 September 2026. Establishing the precise legal boundary requires the relevant title and survey evidence alongside this utility plan.

Physical pages 4–5 record the 14-year term, one-off £2,000 sum and equipment schedule; the payment is not itemised as £2,000 for BH68 alone. The comparison therefore asks for the asset-by-asset basis of the £25 annual record, rather than assigning a type of apparatus from the amount.

Read the illustrated boundary explanation → · Open the publication image →