The question · editorial wording
Seldons’ letter of 28 October 2025 acknowledges the 27 October correspondence and attachments and reserves the firm’s position. What action followed that notice? Who was responsible, which records were preserved and where is the substantive review outcome? Cornwell had rejected the tampering allegations on 24 October and supplied copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally: what comparison established that their content matched the originals? Will a partner identify the received, self-forwarded and court-filed versions, each change, the written withholding notice and grounds under CPR 31.19, and the preserved original under PD 31B paragraph 35? Who checked the version relied on in paragraph 42 of the amended claim? Identify the first redaction explanation and any response to the reported objection in court. Was verification sought directly from Amelia Skea or National Grid? Identify the supporting record and any correction required. Does the firm adopt the denial sent from Cornwell’s account under the Seldons LLP signature, and on what documented assessment? Who reviewed the allegations about his own conduct and the firm’s responsibilities? Was the later reservation a holding response; if so, where is the concluded, reasoned response? Who authorised him to respond for the firm on allegations about his own conduct? What assessment addressed any conflict between defending him, protecting the firm and advising Mr Mayo?
Why this matters Evidence stewardship
A firm-level answer should explain how evidence bearing its solicitor’s name was handled and checked. The integrity test is whether the disclosed copy preserved the original meaning and made its changes traceable, including the action taken if a problem is found.
Current question directed to: Seldons LLP / Seldons Solicitors · managing partner or professional-standards partner · Bideford
- Proposed recipients
- Seldons Solicitors
- Date sent by this publication
- Not sent
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
Updated 19 September 2026 to distinguish Cornwell’s denial, signed Seldons LLP, from the separate firm reservation and to ask for the firm’s reasoned review. The sent notice, 28 October acknowledgement and 24 October replies have been reviewed. Receipt of the historical notice and attachments is recorded. This expanded publication question has not been sent and is not marked overdue.
What the record answers
Cornwell’s 24 October email, signed Seldons LLP, denied tampering and described replacement copies delivered personally by Mark John Mayo (claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon). The separate 28 October firm letter acknowledged the notice and reserved its position; it did not give a reasoned assessment of the corporate allegations. Neither reply supplies the native-message comparison or identifies a completed review by someone other than the solicitor whose conduct was challenged. The Unanswered Record asks the firm to identify that assessment and answer the particulars, rather than treating a denial or reservation as the substantive answer.
The point still requiring clarification
The firm is asked for its own position, the supervision record, a protected version comparison and any correction needed. Identify each change and explain its effect on the meaning of the message supplied.
Updated firm-review question · 19 September 2026 · not sent by this publication.
Where this question comes from
Supporting source notes: 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 · T, notice, acknowledgement, earlier denial and T7: primary court record.
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 BH68-10 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-10 ↗The later production and reply are now recorded.
The 6 November email supplied the historic agreement PDFs, plan and payment records. The covering letter denied a change of position; Mr J’s 7 November reply challenged the material’s connection to BH68. Read these dates alongside the October notices.
Follow the sequence → · Read the solicitors’ and SRA questions →