The question · editorial wording
What agreement or other basis supports the claimed BH68 wayleave rights connected with Mr Mayo? Produce the agreement, its date, parties and plan. Identify the land and apparatus covered. If an older agreement is relied upon, what establishes its continued application after any ownership change or subdivision, and how does it relate to Miss E’s signed 2024 agreement? When and why were the 1963 and 1975 instruments first obtained and relied on, and what explains their addition to the 24 October 2025 schedule? For the 1963 and 1975 instruments now relied on, identify the executed agreement, plan, apparatus, original land and the provision or transaction connecting the asserted right to Mr Mayo. Map that chain through the subdivisions and ownership changes described by the family. Does “transferred” refer to the operator’s apparatus/access rights, a payment entitlement, or a right claimed personally by Mr Mayo? Which conveyancing-file pages support it? Reconcile that account with PCC’s January 2024 predecessor letter and Miss E’s June agreement.
Why this matters Verifiability
Miss E’s signed agreement provides a specific record against which the claimed BH68 rights can be compared. A transfer assertion should identify the relevant agreement or other basis, the land and apparatus, and why an older arrangement is said still to apply. Without those records, the family cannot test the competing claim.
Current question directed to: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · via Geldards LLP, the instructed firm, and Howard Mark Hacking (professionally Mark Hacking; solicitor and partner, Geldards LLP, Nottingham; individual SRA 156301), its named contact
- Recipient of the related request in the supplied record
- Nick Shackson (Estates Specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc; Barnstaple, North Devon, in the 2024 correspondence)
- Related request in record
- 6 May 2026
- Sending of a new request by this publication
- Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.
The letter before action addresses Nick Shackson (Document D, pp. 4–5). Geldards’ 7 May 2026 reply acknowledges reviewing recent correspondence to him and receiving the forwarded Skea letter. The 6 May covering email lists a National Grid legal mailbox in BCC; its receipt is unconfirmed (Document E, p. 1). The expanded question compares Miss E’s agreement, PCC’s letter and the reported subdivision. Expanded wording not yet sent by this publication. Tom Watson (estates and wayleaves specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc, listed at Bodmin, Cornwall; the professional match discussed in the meeting account) is a related professional identification, explained in his profile, rather than a recorded recipient. Expanded on 19 September 2026 to seek the historic instrument, land and succession chain; this added wording has not been sent by the publication.
What the record answers
The 2 February reply says existing wayleaves transferred to Mark John Mayo (claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon). The supplied replies do not identify the individual agreements or establish whether one covers BH68. Mark Hacking’s 7 May reply promises a substantive response to recent Shackson correspondence but does not identify those agreements.
The point still requiring clarification
Mr Shackson’s 2 February reply states that existing wayleaves transferred. The supplied replies do not identify the individual agreements or establish whether one covers BH68. The later 5 May reply confirms instruction of Geldards LLP and separately names Mark Hacking as a contact, not as the author of the original statement.
Related requests and replies supplied through 7 May 2026; later substantive clarification not established.
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.
- BH68-04 · Why rely on this plan—and where is the agreement?
- 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: A, pp. 1, 4–6 · B, pp. 5–7 · D, pp. 3–5 · E, p. 3 · J, pp. 1–3 · T8, historic agreements, conveyancing disclosure and payment comparison.
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 BH68-03 and identify the point and evidence you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the question.
Respond to BH68-03 ↗