The question · editorial wording
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.
Current question directed to: Amelia Skea · Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office · National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc
- Recipient of the related request in the supplied record
- Amelia Skea
- Related request in record
- 7 March 2025; renewed 7 May 2026
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
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. Howard Mark Hacking (professionally Mark Hacking; solicitor and partner, Geldards LLP, Nottingham; individual SRA 156301) 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.
What the record answers
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 point still requiring clarification
By 25 September 2026, 576 days had passed since the initial verification request and 141 days since the letter before action. Miss E and Mr J regard the absence of a substantive authentication answer as a serious, non-innocent omission. The September replies reviewed deny a valid claim and confirm representation and service arrangements, but do not authenticate the disputed exchange or identify the supporting BH68 instrument.
September responses checked 25 September 2026; no authentication or BH68-records answer in the replies reviewed.
The connected questions
The agreement, the plan’s reported court use and the email’s authenticity form one documentary chain. These questions test the links in that chain.
- BH68-03 · Which wayleaves cover BH68?
- BH68-04 · Why rely on this plan—and where is the agreement?
- BH68-08 · Why self-forward the disputed email—and what verifies it?
Where this question comes from
Supporting source notes: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 2–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20.
Other parties mentioned
Keep the record complete
Answer this question.
Any party with a response, correction or relevant document can contact theunansweredrecord@gmail.com. Quote BH68-05 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-05 ↗