Why rely on this plan—and where is the agreement?

The question · editorial wording

Mr J says the April 2025 plan was introduced late in the proceedings and relied upon in court to support Mr Mayo’s claimed BH68 rights. Why was it introduced at that stage, and what exactly was it presented as proving? Given Mr Shackson’s later description of a general-area map, “not any particular title”, what justified relying on it for that purpose? Identify the document and the assertion it supported. Where is the executed BH68 wayleave agreement in Mr Mayo’s name and its accompanying plan that the family says it repeatedly requested? If your position rests on an older agreement or another instrument, identify it and explain how it applies to the relevant land and BH68. Identify the accompanying statement of truth, its signatory and the precise assertions it verified, including which email version was exhibited. The family alleges that the plan was used to fill the gap exposed by its demand for the underlying agreement and associated plan. What instructions or requests led to obtaining it, and which executed instrument did you say it belonged to? The supplied forwarding header records Mr Mayo sending Shackson’s email to Cornwell on 16 October 2025. Identify the precise court exhibit and assertion it supported. When did you receive Shackson’s later general-area explanation, and where was that qualification or any correction put before the court? Mr J now reports that the email and map were supplied to Dennis Venn for a boundary survey without Miss E’s agreement and linked plan 83920/SI. What was supplied, by whom and when? Produce the instructions and document index. If her agreement and plan were omitted, why? Once Shackson’s later general-area qualification was available, was it passed to the surveyor and the court? What underlying instrument connected the exchange attributed to Skea and Shackson’s plan to the same claimed BH68 entitlement? Identify precisely what each was relied on to prove and how that case addressed Miss E’s agreement, plan and pole-location evidence.

Current question directed to: Luke Cornwell / Seldons Solicitors · concerning Mark John Mayo’s representation described in the correspondence · Bideford, Devon, United Kingdom

Mark John Mayo — claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon · Case identity and source record

Proposed recipients

Luke Cornwell — Seldons LLP · 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 13 September 2026 from Mr J’s account and the plan correspondence. Mr J says the disputed emails were put before the court in material supported by a statement of truth. The October 2025 submissions now reviewed also make that allegation. The question addresses the reported late introduction of the plan, court reliance and supporting agreement. It has not been sent by this publication. Expanded on 19 September 2026 with the 16 October forwarding header and a request for the handling of the later qualification; not sent by this publication. Updated 25 September 2026 with Mr J’s account of the material supplied to Dennis Venn. The instructions and document bundle have not yet been reviewed; the proposed questions seek to test that account.

What the record answers

Nick Shackson’s 10 February 2026 explanation describes a general-area map, “not any particular title”, and says it was not produced through registered chartered-surveyor survey work. This does not answer why it was reportedly introduced and relied upon in court, or identify the executed agreement requested by the family.

Nick Shackson — Estates Specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc; Barnstaple, North Devon, in the 2024 correspondence · National Grid letter, October 2024 ↗

The point still requiring clarification

The issue is why this plan was introduced and what evidential basis supported its reported use—not simply whether it was used. Mr J says it was relied upon, was not suitable as a wayleave-agreement plan, and did not supply the missing executed agreement. The correspondence records Mr Shackson’s later general-area explanation. The reported court use and timing are Mr J’s account; this question seeks the precise filing, justification and underlying agreement.

Updated 25 September 2026 · proposed question, not sent by this publication.

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?
• BH68-05 · Is the disputed email exchange authentic?
• BH68-08 · Why self-forward the disputed email—and what verifies it?

Where this question comes from

Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan → Read the originating article

Supporting source notes: C, pp. 1–2 · B, pp. 2–7 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, p. 7 · L, pp. 2, 5 · C, p. 2, forwarding header · B, pp. 2–3, later explanation.

Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152

Other parties mentioned