Allegations & Questions · Nigel Merrifield
The issues. The record. The answer.
Related background. No separate allegation is made against this party.
Professional affiliation & public office
Nigel Merrifield · Estates Specialist · National Grid
Organisation: National Grid Electricity Distribution.
Role and organisation recorded in the March 2025 referral correspondence.
Documented involvement
Angela Caddy’s reply identifies him as the Estates Specialist named as the referral recipient. The supplied record contains no reply from him. The family’s later account of meeting an officer called Tom is recorded separately.
Source references: G, p. 1.
Questions connected to this party
The question connections.
No question in this register is recorded as sent directly to Nigel Merrifield. Being named in a document is not the same as being asked a question.
Related questions · see recipient details.
Mentioned in the question · not its recorded addressee
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 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.
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
Related reporting
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