The Unanswered Record · Party question pack
Questions for
Amelia Skea
The reply attributed to you says “your wayleave”; the incoming message names BH67 and BH68. Mr J challenges whether those were the words actually exchanged and alleges possible knowing involvement in misleading wording or failure to correct wording falsely attributed to you. Did you receive that request and send that reply? Identify the underlying instrument for each pole, authenticate the originals and explain any discrepancy.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Compiled 12 September 2026
Attributed allegation and authentication questions · BH68-C02
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 Mark John 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.
Mark John Mayo — claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon · Case identity and source record
Miss E and Mr J · authenticity challenge; Mr J’s knowledge allegation dated 13 September 2026
Evidence, response and full allegation record ↓This pack has not been sent by this publication. No reply deadline has been set. Earlier requests and recorded replies appear below.
BH68-05 · Authentication not found in supplied record
Is the disputed email exchange authentic?
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?
Question directed to: Amelia Skea · Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office · National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc
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.
The recorded response The September correspondence was checked on 25 September 2026. On 8 September Howard Mark Hacking (professionally Mark Hacking; solicitor and partner, Geldards LLP, Nottingham; individual SRA 156301) denied that the earlier correspondence gave rise to a valid claim. Skea’s signed 9 September letter, sent by Geldards on 10 September, confirmed representation and service arrangements and requested no further direct contact. These replies do not authenticate the disputed April 2024 email or identify the underlying BH68 agreement.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
The 26 February 2025 request asks NGED to verify the exchange; its reproduced header omits the recipients. Amelia Skea is visibly copied on 7 March 2025 and directly addressed in the 7 May 2026 formal notice. Mark Hacking acknowledges the forwarded letter and documents. Updated 19 September 2026 with Mr J’s account of the continuing absence of an answer and questions about responsibility for the record check. The elapsed time runs from the original request and formal notice, not from this new consolidated wording, which has not been sent by the publication. September responses independently reviewed 25 September 2026. The elapsed time concerns the historical requests, not a deadline for this expanded publication question.
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.
September responses checked 25 September 2026; no authentication or BH68-records answer in the replies reviewed
Supporting source notes: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 2–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20
BH68-06 · Supporting update records not supplied
What exactly was changed in the payment records?
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?
Question directed to: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · concerning the payment-record update attributed to Amelia Skea · South West Wayleave Records, Bodmin
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 recorded response The September correspondence was checked on 25 September 2026. On 8 September Mark Hacking denied that the earlier correspondence gave rise to a valid claim. Skea’s signed 9 September letter, sent by Geldards on 10 September, confirmed representation and service arrangements and requested no further direct contact. These replies do not authenticate the disputed April 2024 email or identify the underlying BH68 agreement.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
The formal letter asks Amelia Skea for the basis of the record update, the supporting agreement and the verification undertaken. Its covering email lists corporate legal and wayleaves recipients; Mark Hacking acknowledges receipt of the forwarded letter and email. Receipt by the other listed mailboxes is unconfirmed. The expanded question adds the archived attachments, June agreement, printed reference and separate pole identification. Expanded wording not yet sent by this publication. Expanded on 19 September 2026 with PCC’s cheque letter and a request to reconcile the payment records; the added questions have not been sent by this publication.
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.
September responses checked 25 September 2026; no authentication or BH68-records answer in the replies reviewed
Supporting source notes: 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. 7
A response belongs beside the question
Answer by question number.
State what you accept or dispute. Identify the supporting document and the relevant passage. If a record cannot be provided, explain why and what can be verified instead. Material answers and corrections will be considered and reflected alongside the relevant question.
Send your response to theunansweredrecord@gmail.com. This opens an email draft; it does not submit or send anything automatically. Please avoid sending unredacted sensitive personal information.
Prepare a numbered response ↗Readers with relevant evidence or corrections should contact the editorial desk. Please do not organise repeated messages to individual employees.
Allegations & Questions · Amelia Skea
The issues. The record. The answer.
Named in an allegation. The entries below state who raises each allegation or concern, the supporting sources and the response status.
BH68-C02 · Attributed allegation and authentication questions
“Your wayleave”: whose words, and which agreements?
Miss E and Mr J · authenticity challenge; Mr J’s knowledge allegation dated 13 September 2026
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 supporting record
- Miss E’s request is dated 26 February 2025. Her 7 March follow-up explicitly copies Ms Skea. Angela Caddy’s 10 March reply refers the enquiry to Nigel Merrifield (National Grid Estates Specialist named in the March 2025 referral correspondence). The family subsequently reported visiting Bodmin and sent the May 2026 letter before action.
F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1
Angela Caddy — National Grid Records Assistant in the March 2025 referral correspondence · March 2025 correspondence source
- The recorded response
- The supplied copies contain a referral and solicitor’s acknowledgement, but no direct authentication by Ms Skea. Mr J reports that the substantive authentication and agreement questions remain unanswered as of 12 September 2026.
- The answer still sought
- Was BH68 in the incoming message? Did Ms Skea send “your wayleave” in reply? Identify the agreement for each pole, the record behind reference 2624773 and any correction of false or changed wording. State who checked the referral and where its outcome is recorded.
- Why it matters
- A company should be able to explain whether it stands behind correspondence bearing its name and which records support it.
- Was it put to this party?
- Ms Skea is visibly copied on 7 March 2025 and directly addressed in the 7 May 2026 covering email. The embedded February request does not show its recipient header. The wording here summarises and develops those requests; no new publication enquiry has been sent.
Professional affiliation & public office
Amelia Skea · National Grid · Wayleave Services · Bodmin Office (attributed April 2024 signature)
Organisation: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
South West Wayleave Records public office: Lostwithiel Road, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL31 1DE, United Kingdom.
The signature in the attributed April 2024 message reads “Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office” (Document F, p. 1). The address below is the company’s published departmental office, not independent confirmation of her present work location.
Documented involvement
The printout attributes the “your wayleave” reply to Amelia Skea, Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office. Miss E’s first verification request is dated 26 February 2025, and her 7 March chase explicitly copies Ms Skea. The 7 May 2026 letter before action renews the authentication and agreement questions. As of 19 September 2026, Mr J reports that the substantive answer remains outstanding. He suspects knowing failure to correct false or altered wording, or knowing participation in misleading correspondence, and links that allegation to the disputed BH68 boundary claim. The dated correspondence and precise questions are linked below. The September correspondence has since been checked: Geldards denied a valid claim on 8 September, and Skea’s signed 9 September representation/service letter was sent on 10 September. Those reviewed responses do not supply an authentication finding or identify the BH68 instrument.
Source references: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 2–4 · H, pp. 1–4 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20.
Related reporting
Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan: the questions in the record.
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