Allegations & Questions · National Grid
The issues. The record. The answer.
Related background. No separate allegation is made against this party.
Professional affiliation & public office
National Grid Electricity Distribution · South West Wayleave Records · Bodmin
South West Wayleave Records public office: Lostwithiel Road, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL31 1DE, United Kingdom.
Documented involvement
National Grid is the brand used in the correspondence. The precise company named in the executed agreement is listed below.
Source references: A, p. 4 · B, pp. 5–8 · E, p. 3 · F, pp. 1–2 · J, pp. 1–3.
Questions connected to this party
The question connections.
These questions concern the company’s records and correspondence. The individual addressees and any corporate copy shown in the supplied material are identified in each question record.
Questions concerning the company’s records.
Company correspondence context · see recorded addressees
Who prepared the plan?
Did you personally draw the plan sent to Mr Mayo on 28 April 2025? If not, who prepared it?
Why this matters Traceability
A plan should be traceable to its author and source material. That allows its reliability and limitations to be checked. Identify who prepared the plan, as well as who sent it.
Related request in record 13 February 2026
What the supplied reply addresses
The 2 February reply confirms sending the email and plan. Who prepared it?
Personal-authorship question recorded in Document B, pp. 2–3; chased on 24 February.
Documents: B, pp. 2–3
Company correspondence context · see recorded addressees
Which apparatus—and which title?
Which apparatus and which title did “the apparatus on your title” refer to? What supported that wording, and how does it relate to your later description, “not any particular title”? Did you carry out the Bodmin records check you proposed on 13 March 2025 before sending the April plan? If so, what did it establish? Was this intended as the plan accompanying a particular wayleave agreement? What could it establish about BH68, and what could it not establish? Identify any agreement to which it was attached. Who requested the plan, for what stated purpose, and what agreement was it intended to accompany? Produce the dated request and instructions. What was a general-area map intended to establish about Mr Mayo’s particular rights? Identify the registered title number, the apparatus references intended and the title or survey records checked before the 28 April 2025 email. What did the Bodmin records check promised on 13 March establish about Miss E’s agreement? Was the original title description maintained, corrected or withdrawn after the 10 February 2026 explanation, and who received any correction? Produce the dated records.
Why this matters Precision
A general apparatus map and a statement about a particular title do not necessarily establish the same thing. Integrity requires the wording to match what the underlying records can support, so those relying on it understand its limits.
Related request in record 13 February 2026
What the supplied reply addresses
The 10 February reply describes a general-area map, not a particular title. A direct identification of the apparatus intended by the earlier phrase is not present.
The specific-apparatus question is recorded on 13 February and chased on 24 February. The title enquiry began on 2 February; the formal letter of 6 May requests the basis for the wording. This question draws those requests together. The question about the outcome of the proposed March records check is additional editorial wording, not a claim that this exact follow-up has already been sent. Expanded on 19 September 2026 to request the checked title records, Bodmin outcome and any correction or notification. This expanded wording has not been sent by the publication.
Documents: C, p. 2 · B, pp. 1–5, 8 · D, pp. 4–5 · B, pp. 2–3, 7–8 · C, pp. 1–2 · D, pp. 1–5
Company correspondence context · see recorded addressees
Which wayleaves cover BH68?
What agreement or other basis supports the claimed BH68 wayleave rights connected with Mr Mayo? Produce the agreement, its date, parties and plan. Identify the land and apparatus covered. If an older agreement is relied upon, what establishes its continued application after any ownership change or subdivision, and how does it relate to Miss E’s signed 2024 agreement? When and why were the 1963 and 1975 instruments first obtained and relied on, and what explains their addition to the 24 October 2025 schedule? For the 1963 and 1975 instruments now relied on, identify the executed agreement, plan, apparatus, original land and the provision or transaction connecting the asserted right to Mr Mayo. Map that chain through the subdivisions and ownership changes described by the family. Does “transferred” refer to the operator’s apparatus/access rights, a payment entitlement, or a right claimed personally by Mr Mayo? Which conveyancing-file pages support it? Reconcile that account with PCC’s January 2024 predecessor letter and Miss E’s June agreement.
Why this matters Verifiability
Miss E’s signed agreement provides a specific record against which the claimed BH68 rights can be compared. A transfer assertion should identify the relevant agreement or other basis, the land and apparatus, and why an older arrangement is said still to apply. Without those records, the family cannot test the competing claim.
Related request in record 6 May 2026
What the supplied reply addresses
The 2 February reply says existing wayleaves transferred to Mr Mayo. The supplied replies do not identify the individual agreements or establish whether one covers BH68. Mark Hacking’s 7 May reply promises a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence but does not identify those agreements.
The letter before action addresses Nick Shackson (Document D, pp. 4–5). Geldards’ 7 May 2026 reply acknowledges reviewing recent correspondence to him and receiving the forwarded Skea letter. The 6 May covering email lists a National Grid legal mailbox in BCC; its receipt is unconfirmed (Document E, p. 1). The expanded question compares Miss E’s agreement, PCC’s letter and the reported subdivision. Expanded wording not yet sent by this publication. Tom Watson (estates and wayleaves specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc, listed at Bodmin, Cornwall; the professional match discussed in the meeting account) is a related professional identification, explained in his profile, rather than a recorded recipient. Expanded on 19 September 2026 to seek the historic instrument, land and succession chain; this added wording has not been sent by the publication.
Documents: A, pp. 1, 4–6 · B, pp. 5–7 · D, pp. 3–5 · E, p. 3 · J, pp. 1–3 · T8, historic agreements, conveyancing disclosure and payment comparison
Company correspondence context · see recorded addressees
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?
Why this matters Authenticity
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.
Related request in record 7 March 2025; renewed 7 May 2026
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
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.
Documents: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 2–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20
Company correspondence context · see recorded addressees
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?
Why this matters Documentary basis
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.
Related request in record 7 May 2026
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
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.
Documents: 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
Company correspondence context · see recorded addressees
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 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?
Why this matters Answerability
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.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
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.
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.
Documents: G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3
Company correspondence context · see recorded addressees
Why self-forward the disputed email—and what verifies it?
The 31 January 2025 header names you as both sender and recipient: why did you self-forward the exchange attributed to Amelia Skea and Mr Mayo? The family’s Annex E specifically alleges insertion of BH68 into correspondence originally about BH67. Was the phrase “The pole numbers are BH67 and BH68” present in the message received from your source? Produce that message and the native exchange, including attachments, and compare them with the self-forwarded and court-filed versions. Identify every addition, removal or change, who made it and when. If you removed material on privilege grounds, identify the dated written notice or disclosure-list entry under CPR 31.19, its recipients and the grounds for withholding. Where is the unaltered original preserved under PD 31B paragraph 35? If no notice exists, explain why and identify any relevant direction. Paragraph 42 of the second amended claim relies on MJM2 pages 20–25: what checks supported that verified assertion? Identify the first redaction explanation and any hearing record addressing Mr J’s reported objection. Mr J says the emails were relied upon while the requested agreement and Ms Skea’s authentication remained outstanding: what checks supported that reliance, and which agreement supported the claimed BH68 rights? Provide the dated explanation and version comparison with appropriate protection for genuinely confidential information. Your second 24 October email cites item 5 as evidence of transfer; the schedule labels it National Grid Wayleave Payments. What within that item identifies BH68 and establishes the claimed transfer, and how does it connect to the 1963 and 1975 instruments?
Why this matters Document provenance
The family’s concern is that the disputed copy carried the weight of an agreement they say was never produced, without a checkable confirmation from the attributed sender. The integrity test connects provenance, meaning and reliance: which words were actually sent, what changed, what verified them and what justified the use made of them in court?
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
The supplied printout shows the forwarding header. The October 2025 rebuttal and oral summary expressly allege a written admission of editing and challenge a later redaction explanation. Mr J says the explanation concerned private client information and followed the family’s challenge. The question seeks the dated explanation and a comparison of the versions. A separately reviewed 24 October 2025 email expressly rejects the tampering allegations as baseless and supplies further copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally. The question seeks the original-source and content comparison behind that explanation.
Based on the self-forwarding header in Document F, Miss E’s verification requests in Document G, the October 2025 submissions K and L, and Mr J’s account. No sending date or response deadline has been recorded for this editorial question. Revised on 13 September 2026 to connect the authentication request, Mr J’s account of court reliance, the requested agreement and the self-forwarded copy. The new wording has not been sent by this publication. Newly reviewed Annex E, the 27 October 2025 outgoing notice to Cornwell/Seldons and Annex J-2 particularise the earlier allegation. They are not a record of sending this new question. The item-5 transfer question was added on 19 September 2026 and has not been sent by this publication.
Documents: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 3–5 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · T, recorded 24 October replies and T7: paragraph 42, MJM2 and redaction rules · T8, 24 October transfer email and revised schedule
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