The Unanswered Record · Party question pack
Questions for
Geldards LLP
For the partner handling National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc’s instructions. The supplied correspondence directs further contact through Geldards and records a promised substantive reply concerning Nick Shackson (Estates Specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc; Barnstaple, North Devon, in the 2024 correspondence). The question asks the firm to identify the answers and supporting record.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Compiled 12 September 2026
This pack has not been sent by this publication. No reply deadline has been set. Earlier requests and recorded replies appear below.
BH68-07 · Proposed · not yet sent
Where is the promised substantive response?
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 (National Grid Wayleave Services; Bodmin, Cornwall, in the attributed April 2024 email signature) 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?
Question directed to: Howard Mark Hacking (professionally Mark Hacking; solicitor and partner, Geldards LLP, Nottingham; individual SRA 156301) / Geldards LLP · for National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Nottingham office
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 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 documented 24 April and 7 May 2026 replies are distinguished from the authentication answer sought. The express promise concerned Shackson correspondence; the Skea letter was acknowledged separately. As of 19 September 2026, Mr J reports no subsequent substantive answer. This consolidated editorial follow-up has not been sent; no response deadline is assigned to 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.
September responses checked 25 September 2026; no authentication or BH68-records answer in the replies reviewed
Supporting source notes: G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3
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 · Geldards LLP
The issues. The record. The answer.
Questions / response concerns. The entries below state who raises each allegation or concern, the supporting sources and the response status.
BH68-C04 · Response concern
Where is the promised substantive response?
Documented commitment · later non-response reported by Mr J
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 supporting record
- The April reply states that previous requests had been dealt with and asks for further particulars. The May reply acknowledges the forwarded Skea letter, directs correspondence through the firm and promises a response concerning Mr Shackson.
- The recorded response
- Those replies are recorded. They do not themselves authenticate the disputed exchange or explain which agreement supports the claimed BH68 position. The reported position after May is the family’s account.
- The answer still sought
- Identify the dated answers said to have been given. Complete the promised response or explain what prevents it and who is responsible.
- Why it matters
- A response must address the question and identify its supporting record. Acknowledgement and referral are distinct from substantive resolution.
- Was it put to this party?
- The 7 May promise concerns Shackson correspondence, not an express promise to authenticate Skea’s email. BH68-07 is a proposed follow-up; no sending date or deadline is recorded for that new wording.
Professional affiliation & public office
Geldards LLP · Nottingham office
Geldards Nottingham public office: Cubo Standard Court, Park Row, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG1 6GN, United Kingdom.
This identifies the Nottingham office associated with Mark Hacking, not the firm’s only office.
Documented involvement
Nick Shackson’s reproduced email dated 5 May 2026 identifies Geldards LLP and Mark Hacking. The supplied bundle does not include a substantive reply from that firm answering the two February map questions. The further supplied correspondence includes Mark Hacking’s 24 April and 7 May 2026 replies: he says earlier requests were dealt with, asks for further particulars, acknowledges the forwarded Skea letter and promises a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence. Those replies do not themselves authenticate the disputed exchange or identify a BH68 agreement.
Source references: E, p. 3 · J, pp. 1–3.
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, Mark John Mayo (claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon), 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