The question · editorial wording
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.
Current question directed to: Howard Mark Hacking (professionally Mark Hacking; solicitor and partner, Geldards LLP, Nottingham; individual SRA 156301) / Geldards LLP · for National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Nottingham office
- Proposed recipients
- Mark Hacking · Geldards LLP
- Date sent by this publication
- Not sent
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
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.
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
The replies reviewed leave the family’s central request unresolved: identify the authentic exchange and the particular records supporting the claimed BH68 position. Proposed follow-up—not yet sent.
September responses checked 25 September 2026; no authentication or BH68-records answer in the replies reviewed.
Where this question comes from
Supporting source notes: G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3.
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 BH68-07 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-07 ↗