The Unanswered Record · Party question pack
Questions for
Nick Shackson
You supplied the April 2025 plan and replied about the wayleave records. The questions concern its preparation, the phrase “on your title”, the later general-area explanation and the agreement supporting the claimed BH68 rights.
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 Mark John Mayo (claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon) 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.
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.
BH68-01 · No direct answer in supplied record
Who prepared the plan?
Did you personally draw the plan sent to Mr Mayo on 28 April 2025? If not, who prepared it?
Question directed to: Nick Shackson · Estates Specialist · National Grid
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.
The recorded response The 2 February reply confirms sending the email and plan. Who prepared it?
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Personal-authorship question recorded in Document B, pp. 2–3; chased on 24 February.
Miss E asked about personal authorship on 13 February 2026. The earlier reply confirms sending the plan, which is a different point. No direct answer to the later authorship question appears in the supplied bundle.
Related material reviewed through 7 May 2026; no later direct answer established
Supporting source notes: B, pp. 2–3
BH68-02 · No direct answer in supplied record
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.
Question directed to: Nick Shackson · Estates Specialist · National Grid
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.
The recorded response 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.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
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.
The 13 February request asked which apparatus the phrase meant. The 24 February follow-up says this remained unanswered. The February reply explains that the map displayed a general area; the available copies contain no direct answer identifying the apparatus intended by the earlier wording.
Related material reviewed through 7 May 2026; no later direct answer established
Supporting source notes: 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
BH68-03 · Clarification not found in supplied record
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.
Question directed to: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · via Geldards LLP, the instructed firm, and Howard Mark Hacking (professionally Mark Hacking; solicitor and partner, Geldards LLP, Nottingham; individual SRA 156301), its named contact
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.
The recorded response 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.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
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.
Mr Shackson’s 2 February reply states that existing wayleaves transferred. The supplied replies do not identify the individual agreements or establish whether one covers BH68. The later 5 May reply confirms instruction of Geldards LLP and separately names Mark Hacking as a contact, not as the author of the original statement.
Related requests and replies supplied through 7 May 2026; later substantive clarification not established
Supporting source notes: 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
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 · Nick Shackson
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.
Professional affiliation & public office
Nick Shackson · Estates Specialist · National Grid
Organisation: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
Professional role recorded in the case correspondence.
Documented involvement
His email signature gives his role as Estates Specialist. The supplied correspondence records his replies about the plan and wayleave records.
Source references: B, pp. 2–8 · C, p. 2 · E, p. 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, Amelia Skea (National Grid Wayleave Services; Bodmin, Cornwall, in the attributed April 2024 email signature), 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