Public business record / Funding context
Mark John Mayo, Mayo Media and British Dealer News
Mark John Mayo is a director of Mayo Media 2015 Ltd, company 09412563, appointed on 29 January 2015. Companies House: his appointments · The company record.
British Dealer News, the motorcycle-industry trade publication, identifies its publisher as Mayo Media. Its website uses the name Mayo Media Ltd and lists the same business address as Mayo Media 2015 Ltd: 10 Daddon Court, Clovelly Road Industrial Estate, Bideford, EX39 3FH. BDN’s own publisher statement · Publisher name and business address.
Mr Mayo: does the reported company-payment account concern this business? If so, which legal entity paid, who incurred the liability, and what records supported the VAT claimed from Miss E? The directorship is verified; the identity of the company in the reported hearing exchange must be established from the invoices and payment record.
Read the company-payment and VAT challenge · FUND-05: the full question · Business sources and wider context
Five direct questions / Publisher management
British Dealer News / Mayo Media: which company, whose money, what records?
Miss E is being asked to bear legal costs. She is entitled to challenge the basis on which those costs are claimed. Mr J’s reported account of the 22 May 2026 hearing raises a specific question for the publisher’s management: did its business have any part in the payment arrangement described?
MEDIA-01 / Mayo Media — British Dealer News publisher management
Name the publisher. Confirm Mark John Mayo’s role.
Which registered company publishes British Dealer News? Give its full legal name and company number, explain its relationship to Mayo Media 2015 Ltd (09412563), and confirm Mark John Mayo’s role in the publishing business.
MEDIA-02 / Mayo Media — British Dealer News publisher management
Did the business handle any of the litigation costs?
Has the publishing company paid, advanced, reimbursed or processed any legal expenses concerning Mark John Mayo’s litigation against Miss E or Mr J? If so, identify the entity, relevant dates and invoices, and distinguish money supplied by Mayo from funds provided by the company.
MEDIA-03 / Mayo Media — British Dealer News publisher management
If payments occurred, who authorised them—and who bore the liability?
If any such payments occurred, who authorised the arrangement, who was the legal-services client and who was liable for the invoices? Explain whether the payments were company expenditure, a loan, reimbursement or the handling of money supplied by Mayo, and identify the supporting records.
MEDIA-04 / Mayo Media — British Dealer News publisher management
Does the company’s record support the payment account and VAT treatment?
Mr J reports that Mayo told the court on 22 May 2026 that he paid a company which then paid his legal expenses. Does that account concern your business? If so, identify the records that confirm or correct it, any relevant VAT treatment, and any information your company supplied for the costs claim against Miss E.
MEDIA-05 / Mark John Mayo and Mayo Media — British Dealer News publisher management
Personal legal fees: what was claimed for tax—and what was claimed from Miss E?
Were any legal expenses concerning Mark John Mayo’s personal property litigation deducted when calculating a company’s taxable profits? Was any associated VAT reclaimed or recoverable, and by which entity? If so, identify the company, expenditure and basis for that treatment, including whether the payments were recorded as remuneration, a director’s loan, reimbursement or another arrangement. Identify the relevant accounting and reporting records, and explain how that treatment reconciles with the reported hearing account and costs claimed from Miss E.
Published on 2 October 2026 for follow-up; not yet sent by this publication. A response should identify the question number and supporting record, or state clearly that the business had no involvement.
Publisher identity and Companies House sources · Hearing account and full documentary context · The costs and VAT challenge
Additional strand · Planning & sale-related sign
Concrete works and the sign: two further questions.
Mr J attributes the signs to Mr Mayo, citing a neighbour’s account and security-camera footage. The family alleges deliberate sale obstruction and unauthorised concrete works. The new reporting examines these claims alongside the Council’s replies and identified permissions.
PLAN-11 and PLAN-12: questions for Mark John Mayo → · Read the planning investigation →
Related reporting · Annex E
The wider allegation and response record.
Open this party’s Annex E questions → · Read the overview, replies and later outcomes →
The Unanswered Record · Party question pack
Questions for
Mark Mayo
Miss E and Mr J challenge the documentary basis of the BH68 rights said to be connected with you. They allege that the plan and disputed correspondence created a misleading impression. This question asks you to identify the instrument and land on which your position actually depends.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Compiled 12 September 2026
Attributed allegation · BH68-A01
Miss E and Mr J allege that the April 2025 plan was used to create a false impression that Mr Mayo held wayleave rights concerning BH68, and to mislead the court. They direct the allegation to Mr Mayo and, over the supply and description of the plan, to Nick Shackson (Estates Specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc; Barnstaple, North Devon, in the 2024 correspondence) and National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
Miss E and Mr J · allegation recorded in the reporting
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.
BH68-11 · Proposed · not yet sent
Mr Mayo: which agreement supports your BH68 position?
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?
Question directed to: Mark John Mayo · response may be provided through his representative
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.
The recorded response The supplied record includes correspondence about the plan and the position attributed to Mr Mayo. Shackson asserts that existing wayleaves transferred. This proposed question asks Mr Mayo to identify his precise position and the instrument supporting it; it is not described as a question already ignored by him.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Prepared on 12 September 2026 as a direct question to Mr Mayo, distinct from historical requests to National Grid. No sending date, response or deadline is recorded for this proposed question. Expanded on 13 September 2026 to ask about the exact pole-reference wording and both underlying instruments; not sent by this publication. The conveyancing and succession-chain questions were added on 19 September 2026; this added wording has not been sent by the publication.
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.
Proposed direct question · 12 September 2026 · not sent
Supporting source notes: 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
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 · Mark Mayo
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-A01 · Attributed allegation
The plan and the claimed rights
Miss E and Mr J · allegation recorded in the reporting
Miss E and Mr J allege that the April 2025 plan was used to create a false impression that Mr Mayo held wayleave rights concerning BH68, and to mislead the court. They direct the allegation to Mr Mayo and, over the supply and description of the plan, to Nick Shackson and National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
- The supporting record
- The linked sources include Miss E’s signed agreement, the April plan and Mr Shackson’s replies. The April email uses “on your title”; the February reply describes a general area, “not any particular title”. The plan already carries an accuracy disclaimer. The question is what records justified the title wording and the claimed BH68 rights.
- The recorded response
- Mr Shackson confirmed sending the plan, described it as a general-area map and asserted that existing wayleaves transferred to Mr Mayo. The questions ask which instrument, apparatus and land support that position.
- The answer still sought
- Identify the agreement. Identify the land and apparatus. Explain what the plan was intended to establish.
- Why it matters
- A claim about a particular pole and property must be traceable to the records that actually support it.
- Was it put to this party?
- The related questions to Mr Shackson and the 6 May 2026 letter before action are recorded. The proposed question about court use has not been sent by this publication; delivery to every party linked here is not established.
Documented involvement
The copied April email is addressed to Mark; Nick Shackson’s later reply confirms sending it to Mr Mayo. The family’s formal letter uses the fuller name Mark John Mayo. The reported claim reference L00BP152 was supplied by the case contributor; it has not been checked here against a sealed court document.
Source references: C, p. 2 · B, pp. 6–7 · D, p. 1 · 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 · P, pp. 1–3 · Q, 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, 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