NPG Dispute

Private strategic note — not for disclosure to NPG or inclusion in any correspondence.

Mr Denison was employed by the Freedom Group of Companies when electrician Kelvin Dixon (aged 61, over 40 years' experience) died on 3 June 2013 at a domestic property in Low Fell, Gateshead. Mr Dixon was carrying out live low-voltage cable jointing work as a framework contractor for Northern Powergrid — the same DNO involved in this dispute — inside a confined under-stairs cupboard at a pensioner's property. He suffered a fatal electrocution.

Mr Denison gave evidence to the subsequent investigation. The Freedom Group was later acquired by NG Bailey in 2018.

Relevance to this dispute: The parallel is direct — Freedom Group (like OCU Group) was a framework contractor carrying out LV network works at a domestic property on behalf of Northern Powergrid. The investigation centred on the adequacy of the RAMS, the safe system of work, the DNO's oversight of its contractor's H&S documentation, and compliance with the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (in particular Regulation 14, which prohibits live work unless strictly necessary and properly safeguarded).

Mr Denison therefore has first-hand, informed knowledge of what adequate RAMS and contractor oversight by a DNO looks like, what inadequate documentation looks like, and what questions a formal investigation would ask. This background sharpens the RAMS questions prepared for this dispute and provides credibility if matters are escalated to the HSE. It should not be raised with NPG directly — its value lies in informing Mr Denison's approach, not in being disclosed prematurely.

File: RAMS-and-work-instructions-questions.txt

Mr Denison had a path privately laid at the property — approximately 100sqm. The work was not done to a satisfactory standard and the path failed.

Mr Denison commissioned a high-specification replacement. He was waiting for this work to be carried out when Northern Powergrid first attended.

A digging team arrived at the property unannounced. Mr Denison was not informed in advance. The team dug down and located the supply but could not complete the works — the cables were found to be encased in concrete.

The diggers' paperwork stated they were installing a new supply for the neighbouring property via Mr Denison's cellar, and a new supply for Mr Denison's property. This contradicted what the neighbour (Craig Orr) had previously told Mr Denison would happen.

The diggers' office was closed so they could not seek further instruction. They arranged for a reinstatement team to return and left the excavation open. They also discussed digging up the verge — Mr Denison's wife objected to this.

Mr Denison's wife messaged Karen Orr (neighbour) the same day. Karen confirmed: "Craig thinks they have to give up trying to connect via your property and will need to try something different and more complex on ours."

• Subcontractor: OCU Group
• Reason works could not be completed: cables encased in concrete
• Works booked without Mr Denison's prior knowledge or consent

Mat (OCU) called Mr Denison by phone on the day of the dig — Mr Denison could not take the call and texted back: "Can I call you later?" Mat replied by text: "It's Mat from ocu group / Give me a call when your free. / Thank you"

OCU initiated contact on the day of the works. What was discussed on any subsequent call is not recorded.

Mr Denison texted Mat asking for photographs taken before works began and confirmation of when the reinstatement team would attend. He noted he had taken the day off to be present.

Mat's only reply: "I'm unsure what you mean. As far as I know there won't be anyone attending today." — Mat had no knowledge of the reinstatement booking, despite it having been made by OCU's own operative on site the previous day.

Mr Denison then explained the contractor on site had booked it as an emergency for Saturday as it was blocking access, asked for photos, and asked who was responsible — NPG or OCU? Mat did not reply to any of these messages.

Mr Denison's final message to Mat: "No worries northern power grid are sorting. Thnx" — Mr Denison had spoken to NPG directly and they had confirmed they were handling reinstatement. He texted Mat to let him know. Mat read this message on 06/11/2024 and never replied. The requested photographs were never provided.

Strategic note: The promise that reinstatement would be sorted came from NPG directly to Mr Denison — not from OCU. Mr Denison relayed that confirmation to Mat. NPG then missed three reinstatement appointments. This is NPG's broken promise, made directly to Mr Denison, on record. OCU's failure is narrower: their office had no knowledge of what their own on-site operative had booked. Reserve both for Ombudsman, Ofgem, or formal proceedings — do not disclose to NPG before SAR response received.

Following the original dig, three separate reinstatement appointments were made and missed by OCU (NPG's contractor). Mr Denison took time off work on each occasion to be present. No one came, and no prior notice of cancellation or rescheduling was given on any occasion. Mat (OCU) was ignoring Mr Denison's messages by this point.

Mr Denison was forced to escalate through NPG's formal complaints department to compel OCU to attend. Reinstatement was only carried out after that escalation. This is the first formal complaint Mr Denison raised with NPG — NPG hold a record of it.

Mr Denison arranged for the reinstatement team to attend and backfill the excavation. The reinstatement team had not been told to reinstate — separate teams were used for digging and reinstatement with no coordination between them.

The reinstatement was carried out to the then-existing standard of the path. This was acceptable to Mr Denison at the time as the path was already due to be completely relaid to a higher specification.

NPG subsequently sent Mr Denison £100 unsolicited compensation — an implicit acknowledgement of disruption caused by the unannounced visit.

No photographic record: No before or after photographs were taken by NPG or OCU during the 2024 reinstatement. No survey lines were marked. There is therefore no documented record of the drainage profile, path gradient, or surface condition before or after the works. NPG's "like for like" reinstatement offer for any future works is unverifiable — they have no baseline to demonstrate what "like" was, and neither does anyone else.

Drainage observation: The cellar at the property appears to have been noticeably drier since the 2024 reinstatement was completed. This suggests the works altered the drainage or run-off characteristics of the excavated area, whether intentionally or not. It confirms that reinstatement does affect drainage profile, and that any future excavation and reinstatement carries the same risk — without a documented baseline, any change (positive or negative) cannot be attributed or remedied.

Question to raise with NPG: How did NPG and OCU ensure that the drainage and run-off profile of the reinstated area matched the pre-works condition? What steps will be taken to document and replicate drainage characteristics before any future works are carried out?

Mr Denison had the path relaid to a very high specification — approximately 100sqm. The work was carried out by a specialist tradesman over multiple days using a hand-grouting methodology designed to ensure long-term durability. Cost approximately £15,000.

The section affected by the proposed NPG works contains 4–5 mature trees. One is a willow tree planted 11 years ago as a living memorial to the family cat. The root systems of these trees would be at serious risk from excavation.

A representative attended Mr Denison's property and verbally requested consent to carry out works — the same de-loop job that could not be completed in November 2024. Mr Denison refused consent.

The representative appeared to have no knowledge of the November 2024 visit, the concrete encasement, or the previous inability to complete the works.

Mr Denison subsequently discovered that an appointment for the works had already been booked for 22 June 2026 — before consent had been sought.

NPG claim a letter was handed to Mr Denison during this visit. Mr Denison did not receive any letter.

Mr Denison told the operative he would rather go to court than allow the works. The operative responded: "It may come to that."

SAR submitted to Northern Powergrid Data Protection team covering the 2024 works. Response due by 21 June 2026.

SAR submitted to OCU Group (DPO: Dean Hogarth) covering the 2024 works. Response due by 21 June 2026.

Mr Denison called NPG Customer Services at 08:04. Martin Hall initially could not find any record of active works at Mr Denison's property. He said he would go away and investigate. He found the record — the 2024 job had been closed down. Martin said he would call back.

Martin Hall called Mr Denison back at 12:59. Key points from this call:

• Martin confirmed the job is a connections job, still related to the neighbouring property — an implicit admission that the works are for the neighbour's benefit
• Mr Denison learned for the first time on this call that an appointment had already been booked for 22 June 2026
• Mr Denison's primary concern was preventing anyone attending the property while the family were on holiday — his wife's anxiety in particular
• Martin Hall asked Mr Denison how long he would be away for — NPG were therefore aware of the duration of Mr Denison's absence, not just that he was going on holiday
• Mr Denison asked to be copied into the email Martin was sending to the Connections team, so he had written proof before going on holiday that the instruction had been passed on
• Mr Denison asked Martin to copy him into the email Martin was sending to the Connections team, so Mr Denison had written confirmation before going on holiday that the instruction had been passed on. Martin said he did not have time. Mr Denison challenged this directly on the call — he had already spent considerable time on the matter that day and Mr Denison could not understand why copying him into a single email was beyond what he could do. Martin agreed to copy Mr Denison in.

The call ended with Martin's commitment to copy Mr Denison in. Mr Denison and his wife left for holiday with no written assurance from NPG. Mr Denison's wife was forced to ask a neighbour to watch the property and ensure no one came round in their absence — a direct consequence of NPG's failure to honour the commitment made on this call.

Strategic note: On the same day Martin Hall refused to copy Mr Denison in and gave only a generic inbox, NPG's Connections team sent a letter containing Andy Balding's direct mobile number and a 7-day deadline to contact him. Mr Denison did not receive that letter until 30 May — by which point the deadline had passed. NPG's Customer Services and Connections teams operated in complete contradiction on the same day: one refusing contact, the other demanding it within 7 days.

Broken promise: This email was sent 25 minutes after Martin Hall explicitly committed on the 12:59 call to copy Mr Denison into the email to the engineer. He did not copy Mr Denison in — he directed Mr Denison to a generic inbox (getconnected@northernpowergrid.com) with a call centre number. On the same day NPG's Connections team sent a letter requiring Mr Denison to contact Andy Balding on his direct mobile within 7 days or face disconnection. Mr Denison was actively trying to reach the responsible person through the proper channel. NPG's Customer Services blocked that contact on the same day NPG's Connections team demanded it within 7 days. Martin's "no time" excuse is particularly damning: he had been in active communication with the Connections team throughout the day — he obtained job information from them before his 12:59 callback and emailed them at 13:24. He had time to communicate with Andy Balding's team repeatedly; he chose not to copy Mr Denison in. The email also uses "as agreed" — implying Mr Denison consented to the works being refused, when no formal written request had ever been made. Complaint addendum sent 2 June 2026.

Reply sent to Dean Hogarth (OCU Group DPO) expanding the original SAR to cover 2026 developments and the missed 2024 reinstatement appointments.

Formal letter dated 22 May 2026, Our Ref: ENQ23250651, sent by first class post from The Connections Team, signed Andy Balding (Surveyor, mobile: 07771 946725). Addressed "To The Occupier" — not to Mr Denison by name. Headed URGENT. Mr Denison was on holiday when it arrived, returning 30 May 2026. NPG were aware he was leaving on holiday on 22 May — Martin Hall was told during the morning phone call.

• Physical work described: de-loop the connection between Mr Denison's property and the neighbouring property; install a new direct connection from NPG's mains cable. This is broadly consistent with what was described on 21 May.
• Stated justification has changed: on 21 May, reason given was to enable the neighbour to have solar panels and a car charger. The letter now reframes this as "wider upgrade improvements to the local electricity network" that "cannot be delayed" — invoking network maintenance/statutory language to strengthen grounds under the Electricity Act 1989. The neighbour already has both solar panels and a car charger installed, making the original reason demonstrably obsolete.
• "Cannot be delayed" — directly contradicted by NPG's own abandonment of the 2024 works and over a year of inaction since.
• Threatens referral to NPG Legal Department and formal notice of intention to disconnect if no response within 7 days
• States work will be carried out free of charge
• Contains Priority Services Membership paragraph (electrically dependent occupants)
• "As previously explained" and "previous decision not to agree" — letter characterises the unannounced 21 May door-knock as a formal prior consultation and Mr Denison's doorstep response as a formal decision. Neither is accurate.
• Surveyor direct mobile: 07771 946725 (Andy Balding)

Mr Denison's wife messaged Karen Orr (neighbour's wife) on 22 May 2026 informing her of the NPG visit and the 22 June appointment. Karen's replies contain critical evidence:

• NPG committed to working via the Orrs' property only. Karen: "They've always been aware of the need to do it without coming through yours... we've been clear it can't." NPG have been in discussions since 2024 and found a route via the Orrs' cellar wall into the front garden.
• The Orrs' late June booking is for works at their property, not Mr Denison's. Karen: "We are having a new supply via our property as we understand it."
• The 21 May operative likely attended the wrong address. Mr Denison's wife: "I wonder if that guy that came yesterday should have come to your house?"
• Karen had no knowledge of any visit to Mr Denison. "This is all news to us."
• No letter was given on 21 May. Mr Denison's wife's contemporaneous message confirms: "He never mentioned this nor did he give us a letter as he should have apparently."
• OCU Group = O'Connor Utilities. Named directly by Mr Denison's wife: "O'Connor utilities who northern power grid use as civils are the worst! Pure cowboys!"

Note: Craig Orr (husband) is the one dealing with NPG directly and is in the neighbourhood WhatsApp group. Karen may not have the full picture. Craig has a direct personal interest in the works proceeding.

Mr Denison called Andy Balding (07771 946725) to obtain the job reference before sending the formal response letter. Andy confirmed the reference is ENQ23250651 — the same reference already in the letter. Mr Denison advised Andy to expect a formal email.

Andy Balding confirmed as the same person who attended the door-knock on 21 May 2026. He is a Works Coordinator (and Surveyor) at Northern Powergrid directly. He was pleasant on the call.

Comprehensive formal response sent 1 June 2026. Ref: ENQ23250651. Andy Balding called beforehand on 07771 946725 — job reference confirmed as ENQ23250651. Mr Denison told Andy to expect the email.

Sent to: getconnected@northernpowergrid.com, Andy.Balding@northernpowergrid.com
Copied to: martin.hall@, garry.dando@, paul.mcginlay@northernpowergrid.com
Note: michelle.jeffery@northernpowergrid.com bounced — Michelle Jeffery left NPG in July 2023. West Yorkshire successor unknown.

Key arguments made:

• 7-day deadline issued on same day NPG were told Mr Denison was going on holiday — deadline cannot be enforced
• Justification reframing challenged: physical work (de-loop, new direct connection) consistent with 21 May, but stated reason has been deliberately upgraded from "commercial benefit to neighbour" (solar/car charger) to "wider network upgrade that cannot be delayed" — invoking stronger statutory grounds. Neighbour already has solar and car charger, making original reason obsolete. "Cannot be delayed" directly contradicted by NPG closing the 2024 job and over a year of inaction.
• "As previously explained" and "previous decision not to agree" challenged — unannounced door-knock is not a formal consultation; doorstep response is not a formal decision
• Alternative route confirmed by third party — NPG committed to Orrs to do works via their property
• Original 2024 job closed down — representative had no knowledge of concrete encasement history
• Disconnection threat challenged as disproportionate
• Accuracy principle invoked — UK GDPR accuracy principle (consent records disputed, alleged doorstep letter disputed)
• 9 requirements (a)–(i) before access can be considered — including item (i): plan or diagram showing the precise location, extent, and route of any proposed excavation. NPG have described the type of work but have never identified where on the property they intend to dig — without this, reinstatement spec, tree risk, and proportionality cannot be assessed
• NPG to confirm within 5 working days whether they still intend to refer to Legal
• NPG to answer technical questions within 14 days (by approx 14 June 2026)
• Conditions regarding trees and reinstatement flagged for future correspondence — not revealed yet

Tactical reserve: If NPG respond that they cannot answer technical questions without first inspecting, a conditional inspection can be offered at that point — Mr Denison present, no digging, written scope agreed in advance, written report to Mr Denison, expressly not consent to works. Do not offer this unprompted.

Saved: Personal\_output\NPG-response-letter-2026-05-31.txt

Andy Balding's full written response to the 1 June letter. Key points:

• Disconnect letter admitted as generic template — "the purpose of the generic letter is to obtain some engagement following your verbal refusal." Implicit admission it was not a tailored legal notice.
• Work triggered by neighbour's LCT notification — confirms the Orrs notified NPG of their solar/battery installation, triggering the network upgrade programme. Both statements (network upgrade and neighbour benefit) described as true simultaneously.
• Two-part works confirmed: Part 1 entirely at Orrs' property (planned June, now moving per Karen); Part 2 on Mr Denison's land — cutting redundant cable at Joint Hole A (1m x 1m, "may extend further depending on obstructions") near wood store.
• Joint Hole B — 1.5m x 1m in grass near road. Cable cut temporarily to make safe for Joint Hole A excavation. Temporary supply disconnection confirmed for Part 2 works — answers Mr Denison's supply query.
• "No alternative" claim — "if there was an alternative to this we would do it." Directly contradicted by OCU engineers' 2024 suggestion that disconnection could be achieved at the road.
• 21 May letter not handed over — claims Mr Denison's "unequivocal refusal" made the letter redundant. Mr Denison disputes this framing — he refused a doorstep verbal request, not a formal written request.
• Reinstatement offer — "like for like basis," contractor to inspect and photograph before works, specialist sourced if required. Falls short of Mr Denison's conditions.
• Booking process admitted — "our process is to book the work, then inform the relevant parties." Explains but does not excuse booking before consent.
• Meeting offered — Andy and manager happy to meet at mutually convenient time to discuss works and reinstatement.
• Complaint and addendum not addressed. Trees and memorial willow not addressed.

Key outstanding challenge: Joint Hole A is identical in position to the 2024 dig that was abandoned due to concrete encasement. The plan acknowledges the concrete ("safe excavation of the concrete in Joint Hole A"). "May extend further depending on obstructions" — the obstructions are the concrete and the mature trees immediately adjacent. OCU engineers on site in 2024 suggested disconnection could be achieved at the road. Andy's "no alternative" claim requires specific technical rebuttal. Response to be drafted once Mr Denison has spoken to his wife about OCU's road suggestion.

Ben Hardy (NPG Complaints) called Mr Denison. The formal complaint and addendum had been passed to him by the Director (Louise Lowes, Director of Customer Service — name confirmed from contacts). Ben was apologetic and acknowledged that contact details should have been provided during the 22 May calls. An investigation is underway. Ben committed to calling again tomorrow with an update.

Mr Denison texted Ben Hardy to confirm the call and note the apology on record. Saved: Personal\_temp\npg-ben-hardy-text.txt

Contact: Ben Hardy · 07889 959184 · ben.hardy@northernpowergrid.com (email unverified)

Karen messaged Mr Denison's wife (Emma) with an update after speaking to Craig. Mr Denison replied directly — his first direct WhatsApp to Karen.

Key content of Karen's message:

• Craig has a direct contact at NPG — Karen states: "I've spoken to our contact at Northern Power today." This confirms Craig has an inside track at NPG and is in active communication with them.
• Alternative route confirmed — the works at the Orrs' property involve a man-sized hole in their cellar for someone to crawl through under the lounge. This is the more expensive alternative the OCU engineers mentioned in 2024. NPG are doing it via the Orrs' property only.
• The "all old houses / network upgrade" narrative — Craig's contact told him splitting the power is being done in all old houses where demand compromises supply as fitted 110 years ago. This is the same reframing that appeared in NPG's letter of 22 May. Craig is being fed and is now parroting the official NPG line.
• Real motivation confirmed — Karen: "At present we are not allowed any more solar panels and/or a battery due to our supply being insufficient." The Orrs want additional solar capacity and battery storage. This is the genuine driver — confirmed in Karen's own words, in the same message as the network upgrade narrative.
• Access to Mr Denison's property still needed — Craig acknowledges through Karen that once the Orrs have their new supply, NPG need to seal/cut off the live connection at Mr Denison's property. Craig: "That can only be done on your property and he knows he has to get your permission for that." This is the future battle — framed as a safety step, not yet urgent.
• 22 June works can proceed without cutting off Mr Denison's supply — "our work can go ahead without the immediate cut off of yours and they are working with you on a solution." Consistent with Andy Balding's confirmation of 2 June.
• 22 June date is moving — "our work is moving dates from 22/23 June as we're taking mum away for a few days." The immediate 22 June pressure is removed.

Strategic note — coordination: Craig spoke to his NPG contact on 2 June — the same day Mr Denison's formal complaint and addendum were submitted. The "all old houses" narrative now appearing in both NPG's letter (22 May) and Craig's account (2 June) is identical. The story is being coordinated in real time. Karen's message contains both the official narrative and the genuine motivation simultaneously — she does not realise she has contradicted the NPG framing in the same breath. Do not raise coordination directly with NPG — preserve for SAR review (21 June), Ombudsman, or Ofgem. Karen is an unwitting conduit; keep the relationship warm.

Mr Denison replied to Karen directly for the first time via WhatsApp — warm, brief, gave nothing away. Acknowledged the date moving, noted he has been dealing with NPG directly, mentioned it has been a struggle getting straight information. Karen kept on side.

"Hi Karen, Emma has asked me to message you as I've been dealing with NPG directly. Thanks so much for finding that out — it's been a struggle getting any straight information from them so it's really helpful to know the date is moving. Hope the trip with your mum goes well. Matt x"

Formal response to Andy Balding's letter of 2 June 2026 addressing technical matters only, as requested by Ben Hardy. Five sections: (1) Joint Hole A plan accuracy, (2) Joint Hole B road/verge ownership and blossom tree root protection, (3) 2024 works — three conflicting accounts and alternative route, (4) Reinstatement conditions (JS Perkins only, 12-month lead time, NPG to contact directly), (5) Concrete encasement and scope extension risk including mature trees planted 2012.

14 attachments including photographs, paving invoices, and JS Perkins quotes/invoices. CC'd: Ben Hardy, Paul McGinlay, Louise Lowes, Garry Dando, cus.serv@northernpowergrid.com.

Ben Hardy confirmed receipt of the complaint and that it is under investigation. Emails from 1 June and 2 June will be included.

Formal complaint letter to Ben Hardy following his call of 2 June 2026. Five sections: (1) 2024 works — consent, scope change, alternative route, cost decision, cutout fuse change inconsistency; (2) Inconsistencies in NPG communications — Engagement, Urgency, Safety, Threatening; (3) Who decided not to copy Mr Denison in on 22 May; (4) 7-day deadline structurally impossible; (5) Pattern of conduct across 2024 and 2026.

CC'd: Andy Balding, Paul McGinlay, Louise Lowes, Garry Dando, cus.serv@northernpowergrid.com. 8-week complaint clock running from 2 June 2026 — Ombudsman eligible from approximately 28 July 2026.

Short addendum drawing investigation's attention to NPG agreeing to delay the neighbouring property's works (22 and 23 June 2026) at the occupants' request, while refusing the same flexibility to Mr Denison on multiple occasions and threatening disconnection. Source deliberately not disclosed.

Ben Hardy confirmed receipt of the addendum. Everything shared will be included in the ongoing investigation.

Chase to Dean Hogarth (dpo@ocugroup.com) — original SAR (21 May) and addendum (22 May) had received no acknowledgement. Deadline 21 June noted. Mobile 07970 915345 added to assist locating text message records. Copied to Garry Dando (NPG) as data controller.

Andy Balding responded to the 5-section technical letter. CC list narrowed to Mark Appleyard and Ben Hardy only — Directors and Garry Dando dropped without explanation.

• Section 1 (Joint Hole A location): Plan may not be accurate — needs confirming on site
• Section 2 (Joint Hole B ownership): Confirmed excavation is in verge on Mr Denison's side — exact position needs confirming on site
• Section 3 (2024 works): Deferred to Ben Hardy's remit
• Section 4 (Reinstatement): Not refused — "will look into this further and respond later"
• Section 5 (Concrete encasement): 1m x 1m may need expanding; drain visible in photo; requested site visit to assess

Proposed meeting: Friday 12 June AM or Monday 15 June PM, or date after 15 June. Manager: Mark Appleyard (mark.appleyard@northernpowergrid.com).

Agreed in principle to site assessment meeting. Four conditions: (1) date after 21 June — SAR review first; (2) Saturday morning preferred; (3) section 4 reinstatement conditions confirmed in writing before meeting; (4) visit confirmed as assessment only — no works access. Full CC list reinstated (Directors and Garry Dando restored).

Two additional conditions before meeting date can be confirmed: (1) disconnection threat in NPG's 22 May letter must be formally withdrawn in writing; (2) copy of any letter sent prior to 22 May 2026 to be provided by return.

Email to devcontrol@wakefield.gov.uk asking whether any Tree Preservation Order applies to the mature blossom tree in the verge at the property. Noted Sandal Avenue is a private road. CC'd Andy Balding and Mark Appleyard.

Formal email to devcontrol@wakefield.gov.uk requesting a provisional TPO under the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012. CC: Andy Balding, Mark Appleyard, Paul McGinlay. Asks: (1) provisional TPO on the blossom tree; (2) condition works at number 20 on a satisfactory tree protection and reinstatement plan for the verge at number 18 first. Key points: works are demand-led not safety-driven; NPG confirmed dig location in same verge as tree with no mention of tree protection; threatening letter had expired deadline. 8 attachments.

File: correspondence\Wakefield-Council-TPO-letter-sent-2026-06-05.txt

Paul Casey MICFor responded to the 4 June TPO enquiry. Confirmed tree is not currently subject to a TPO or within a Conservation Area. Invited completion of the TPO Evaluation Form. Confirmed Sandal Avenue is a private road — TPO can still be applied for.

Referenced Street Works UK Volume 4 Issue 3: 2026. Stated: "The contractor should be following this guidance whilst operating within close proximity to trees at this site." NPG/OCU have produced no Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and have not consulted Paul Casey's team — despite visiting the site and seeing the tree before issuing the threatening letter. CC: Billy Harkin (Wakefield Council).

Completed TPO evaluation form returned by reply email. CC: Billy Harkin, devcontrol@wakefield.gov.uk. Asked whether NPG should be required to provide an AMS before works near the tree are confirmed.

Short follow-up to Paul Casey drafted but held back pending him reading the full submission. Content: NPG representative visited the property and was personally aware of the tree before the threatening letter was issued, yet produced no AMS and made no LAA consultation. Send if NPG claim ignorance of the tree or if Paul Casey makes contact with NPG before reading the full picture.

Garry Dando confirmed OCU Group is acting as data processor on behalf of Northern Powergrid as data controller. NPG will respond to the SAR in full, including all relevant material held by OCU Group.

Short acknowledgement confirming receipt of Garry Dando's controller/processor clarification and the 21 June 2026 deadline.

Andy Balding responded to Mr Denison's meeting conditions and 4 June technical correspondence.

• Saturday meeting conceded in principle — non-standard, asked Mr Denison to propose a date
• Visit confirmed as assessment only
• Reinstatement: "like for like by our service provider" at no cost, or per m² contribution for own contractor. JS Perkins not named; required spec not confirmed
• TPO sidestepped: NPG will not comment as excavation location not yet agreed — contradicts Andy's own 4 June confirmation that works would be in the verge
• CC list reduced for second time without explanation — Directors and Garry Dando dropped again
• Disconnection threat withdrawal not addressed
• Andy on annual leave from 5 June, returning late following week

Short response sent before Andy's annual leave. CC list restored to full. Key points:

• Second occasion CC list reduced without explanation — required named director-level contact to remain copied
• Clarified documentation requested: the letter Martin Hall claimed was handed to Mr Denison on 21 May 2026
• Disconnection threat withdrawal noted as still outstanding
• NPG's position on Wakefield Council letter — left it to NPG to notify WDC of agreed excavation location
• Confirmed happy to discuss remaining points on Andy's return

Health and safety enquiry sent directly to Gareth Pearson. Raised: (1) Joint Hole B as safety isolation point for the entire 2026 job — works cannot proceed without it; (2) 2024 works excavated at Joint Hole A without Joint Hole B — apparent inconsistency unexplained; (3) whether smart meter remote isolation could substitute for Joint Hole B, removing need for verge excavation entirely; (4) 2024 excavation left open for two weeks. Attached: annotated works plan (blossom tree RPA marked), excavation photos (2024), tree photos including wide-angle streetscape. Framed as a genuine safety enquiry seeking resolution.

CC: Andy Balding, Mark Appleyard, Paul McGinlay. File: correspondence\Gareth-Pearson-HSE-sent-2026-06-07.txt

Gareth Pearson acknowledged the health and safety letter by email on Saturday 6 June 2026 at 14:50. Confirmed he had read it and would "follow-up on the questions you raise about the works and will respond early next week." No substantive response has been received. "Early next week" was 9–10 June 2026.

Note — date discrepancy: The H&S letter is saved as Gareth-Pearson-HSE-sent-2026-06-07.txt (7 June) but Gareth's acknowledgement is dated 6 June — suggesting the letter was sent Saturday 6 June and the file was named one day out. Confirm correct send date.

Significance: Gareth's prompt Saturday acknowledgement, combined with Ryan York's appointment the following Monday morning (8 June), suggests Gareth escalated internally over the weekend rather than responding substantively himself. The specific H&S and arboricultural questions raised in the letter remain unanswered.

Forwarding note to Ben Hardy with Gareth Pearson letter attached as new information for investigation. Key points: (1) arboricultural concerns should have been addressed at design stage — Andy Balding visited site, saw tree and verge, confirmed excavation in that verge; no position in verge avoids the RPA; (2) Paul Casey MICFor confirmed Street Works UK Volume 4 Issue 3: 2026 applies — "The contractor should be following this guidance whilst operating within close proximity to trees at this site"; (3) Andy Balding, Mark Appleyard and Paul McGinlay are currently refusing to engage with Wakefield District Council; (4) disconnection threat still unconfirmed in writing — requested director-level clarification by close of business 10 June 2026.

Andy Balding's statement quoted in full: "The purpose of the generic letter is to obtain some engagement following your verbal refusal and to prevent having to go down any legal process which would always be our last resort so thank you for responding."

CC: Andy Balding, Mark Appleyard, Paul McGinlay, Louise Lowes, Garry Dando, Gareth Pearson, cus.serv. File: correspondence\Ben-Hardy-fwd-Pearson-sent-2026-06-07.txt

Ryan York (General Manager, West Yorkshire) appointed as single point of contact to "close out and agree a way forward." Confirmed he has been brought up to speed on: Andy Balding (Works Co-ordinator), Ben Hardy (Customer Care Operations Manager), Louise Lowes (Director of Customer Service), and Gareth Pearson (Director of Health, Safety and Training). States he has "a deeper understanding of the scope of the works, the proposals in place, and the reasons why this work is required." Requests a meeting or direct discussion before setting out NPG's formal position. Acknowledges "there remains a requirement for us to progress this work" but intends to do so "in as collaborative a manner as possible."

Significance: Director-level escalation has worked — a General Manager assigned within hours of the Ben Hardy forwarding letter. Smart meter, AMS, reinstatement, and disconnection threat all remain unaddressed in writing. 10 June deadline for disconnection threat clarification superseded by Ryan York's conditional response on 9 June — no formal written withdrawal received.

Mr Denison replied welcoming the meeting and confirming willingness to engage. Waived two conditions as a gesture of good faith: (1) meeting on a Saturday; (2) meeting after 21 June (SAR review). Three conditions remain before a meeting date can be agreed: (1) reinstatement specification confirmed in writing — noted that 2024 informal visit was later used to justify an unannounced excavation differing from agreed scope, and any visit under this process will be for assessment only; (2) confirmation of current status of the disconnection threat; (3) copy of the letter prepared to be handed to Mr Denison by Andy Balding on 21 May 2026. Closing: conditions are modest and proportionate given those already waived.

File: correspondence\Ryan-York-reply-sent-2026-06-08.txt

Ryan York responded to Mr Denison's three conditions. Key points:

• Reinstatement: Commits to reusing exact stone in existing pattern and matching the specification. Will not use JS Perkins — cites liability. Offers a "commercial arrangement" that cannot be arranged or facilitated by NPG. Notes 1m x 1m "could in fact be different when undertaking works."
• Disconnection: "No intention to disconnect at this point" — explicitly confirms statutory powers exist and ties assurance to whether parties "reasonably come to" agreement. Conditional personal assurance, not a formal withdrawal of the 22 May letter.
• TPO: Raises emergency fault scenario to argue NPG would have to excavate near the blossom tree regardless of any TPO. Conflates emergency fault repair with planned elective connection works requiring consent.
• 21 May letter: Cannot provide until Andy returns (WC 15 June). Uses phrase "if it exists it will come" — inconsistent with Andy's own written confirmation that the letter was prepared but not handed over.
• Timing: Agrees to meet after 21 June but presses for speed afterwards.

File: correspondence\Ryan-York-response-received-2026-06-09.txt

Mr Denison replied noting that none of the three conditions has been met in writing, and pivoting to a broader argument about design-stage failure. Key points: (1) disconnection response is a conditional assurance not a formal withdrawal; "if it exists" is inconsistent with Andy's own written confirmation; (2) "fundamentally different understandings of the issues in dispute" — Ryan's response shows the arboricultural and procedural concerns have not been understood; (3) design-stage failure — scheme was selected and progressed before LAA consultation, before Root Protection Areas were identified on the works plan, before any assessment of alternatives proposed to Gareth Pearson; (4) neighbouring works continuing to be progressed risks creating the very circumstances being relied upon to justify RPA excavation; (5) emergency fault analogy rejected — planned connection works requiring consent operate in a different legal framework; (6) NPG's written position requested before a meeting is agreed.

File: correspondence\Ryan-York-reply-2-sent-2026-06-09.txt

Formal letter to Garry Dando (CC: Ryan York, Ben Hardy, cus.serv) raising four questions about the accuracy and completeness of NPG's records concerning the letter prepared for delivery on 21 May 2026. Key points: (1) correction request of 22 May 2026 was never confirmed as actioned; (2) Martin Hall had already characterised Mr Denison as refusing the works on the basis of a delivery that Andy Balding subsequently confirmed did not take place; (3) Ryan York's "letter template" and "if it exists" language creates uncertainty about what document was prepared and whether it forms part of Mr Denison's customer file; (4) letter and surrounding records are directly relevant to the procedural basis for later disconnection correspondence, and Mr Denison needs to assess his legal position before NPG moves quickly after 21 June 2026.

Four questions asked: (1) was the 22 May correction request actioned? (2) what records does NPG hold in connection with the 21 May letter? (3) will all such records be included in the SAR response? (4) does NPG consider the document to form part of Mr Denison's customer file, and if not, on what basis? File: correspondence\Garry-Dando-sent-2026-06-09.txt

Brief follow-up to the 5 June 2026 TPO evaluation form submission. Asked whether Paul Casey had had the opportunity to review the submission and whether the application is being progressed. CC: devcontrol@wakefield.gov.uk. File: correspondence\Paul-Casey-chase-sent-2026-06-17.txt

Billy Harkin (Arboricultural Officer) responded to the 5 and 17 June emails. TPO refused on behalf of the Council. Reason: the trees appear to have been badly managed previously through excessive canopy reduction and, when scored against the Council's Amenity Assessment criteria, have a relatively low amenity value based upon their condition. File: correspondence\Paul-Casey-response-received-2026-06-19.txt

Mr Denison replied to Billy Harkin asking him to explain which visible features indicated excessive canopy reduction and whether those works predated the family's ownership of the property (2011). Confirmed that no pruning or canopy reduction had been undertaken in the 15 years since moving in, following advice from a specialist tree surgeon. File: correspondence\Wakefield-Harkin-reply-sent-2026-06-19.txt

Billy Harkin confirmed his canopy reduction assessment is based on visible crown features: historic pruning wounds and regrowth not typical of normal crown development. Stated it is likely the works pre-date 2011. Maintained that the resulting form and condition remain relevant to the tree's current amenity value, contributing to the relatively low amenity score.

Significance: the Council's own arboricultural officer has recorded in writing that the tree's adverse condition is attributable to historical works almost certainly predating Mr Denison's ownership. The tree has been untouched for 15 years. Any further stress caused by NPG's root-zone excavation would compound pre-existing damage confirmed by an independent council officer — a point relevant to reinstatement and tree condition arguments. File: correspondence\Wakefield-Harkin-canopy-response-received-2026-06-19.txt

Partial disclosure received dated 21 June 2026 (the original deadline). Annex A contains: (1) NPG CRM complaint file reference 241105-000580 (2024 reinstatement complaint); (2) PowerON customer system record. Full response extended by two weeks to 5 July 2026, citing need to complete OCU records searches and to consider the accuracy correction request from 9 June 2026.

Key content of Annex A: NPG and OCU's own records corroborate Mr Denison's account at several points. OCU's own notes confirm no prior notification was given before the November 2024 works. NPG's own customer care records record Matthew reporting that what he agreed to was different from what OCU carried out on site. NPG's Level 2 escalation notes record: "They have expressed to me that they feel like they are being punished by us for refusing the neighbours work by not doing the reinstatement." OCU's reinstatement notes record that the tarmac was "not necessary" but was agreed to ensure satisfaction. The £100 goodwill payment is confirmed in the CRM record.

Significant gaps: The entire 2026 dispute is absent from this partial response — no Connections team correspondence, no 21 May letter, no RAMS, no AMS, no Ben Hardy investigation notes, no internal communications about the 2026 works or disconnection threat. These must form part of the 5 July full response. File: correspondence\SAR-partial-response-received-2026-06-21.txt

Formal notice sent to NPG Data Protection and Garry Dando (CC: Ryan York, Ben Hardy) noting that the 21 June 2026 SAR deadline had passed with no response. Cited Article 12(3) UK GDPR. Allowed a further seven days. This letter crossed with the partial response dated 21 June — Mr Denison had not yet received it when the letter was sent. The new deadline for the full response is 5 July 2026 per Garry Dando's letter. File: correspondence\SAR-missed-deadline-sent-2026-06-22.txt

Acknowledgement of Garry Dando's partial SAR response sent following page-by-page review of Annex A. Accepted the 5 July extension. Set out two categories of gaps: (1) 2026 records entirely absent — communications re proposed works, 21 May letter, 22 June appointment, Ben Hardy notes, disconnection threat, RAMS, AMS; (2) 2024 records missing from partial disclosure — 2024 RAMS, survey and consent records for job 240927-003543, goodwill payment letter, 13 November reinstatement photographs sent to NPG by OCU CSM. Separate paragraph on pre-works photographs held on OCU depotnet at reference 161909, confirmed in complaint file, requested multiple times, never provided. Also asked four 9 June questions to be addressed alongside accuracy correction outcome. File: correspondence\Dando-SAR-acknowledgement-sent-2026-06-23.txt

Follow-up SAR disclosure received. Reference number changed to DSAR 021-26 (was DSAR 024-26 — probable typo). Enclosed the "associated customer letter — PC" (the 21 May 2026 letter), now confirmed as prepared 21 April 2026 using an amended standard notification template. NPG confirms the letter was prepared for delivery on the 21 May 2026 visit but not handed over, and has not been updated since. No further template, draft, email, note or version exists. This confirmation closes Ryan York's earlier "if it exists" hedge and treats the 22 May accuracy correction as "made".

Two further deadlines set:

• 10 Jul 2026 — position confirmed on 2024 photos and surveys (specifically being pursued with OCU)
• 23 Jul 2026 — post-22 May 2026 records (treated as one calendar month after the 23 June follow-up letter)

Problematic scope framing: Garry Dando argues that (a) material created after 22 May 2026 does not fall within the scope of the original SAR because the request was made on that date, and (b) personal data must "explicitly refer to" Matthew or his property — RAMS, operational records or records "specifically referencing neighbouring properties" are treated as outside scope. This narrow interpretation of "relates to" under UK GDPR Article 4(1) is contentious and would exclude the 2024/2026 RAMS and operational records for the neighbour's works. Needs to be pushed back on before the 10/23 July disclosures to prevent it becoming the accepted framework.

Also enclosed with the disclosure: the CRM record for complaint 260522-001146; internal NPG emails of 22 May 2026 (Martin Hall to Tracey Mcknight, Mark Appleyard, OCU Delivery); Complex Task specification and Works Order dated 16-17 March 2026 (Andy Balding as Work Initiator; address 20 Sandal Avenue; scheme includes running 9m 25S/C cable through Matthew's cellar); and 13 audio recordings of Matthew's phone calls with NPG Customer Services (2 from 22 May 2026, 11 from November 2024). Transcripts of all 13 recordings prepared locally and saved to call-transcripts\.

File: correspondence\SAR-followup-response-received-2026-07-05.txt

Transcripts: call-transcripts\ (13 files)

Short acknowledgement to Garry Dando of the 5 July follow-up disclosure. Thanked him for the clarification on the associated customer letter. Noted the 10 July (2024 photos and surveys) and 23 July (post-22 May 2026 records) deadlines. Reserved position on the completeness and scope of the disclosure pending receipt of the further material — will address any points arising once the disclosure process is complete. Deliberately short to plant a flag on scope without prejudging the substantive challenge, which will follow the final tranche. File: correspondence\Dando-followup-acknowledgement-sent-2026-07-06.txt

Chase letter sent to Ben Hardy (CC: Ryan York) regarding complaint 260522-001146. Noted that the 30-day expectation from the 2 June phone call expired on 2 July 2026 without a substantive response. Flagged Energy Ombudsman eligibility date of 17 July 2026. Requested a substantive response by 14 July 2026. Signalled that if none is received, Matthew anticipates referring the matter to the Energy Ombudsman once entitled to do so. Tone deliberately soft — "expected to provide" rather than "committed to providing" — to give Ben Hardy a face-saving path to comply rather than dig in. File: correspondence\Ben-Hardy-complaint-chase-sent-2026-07-06.txt

Consolidated chase letter sent to Ryan York (CC: Ben Hardy, Gareth Pearson) as a new email under fresh subject line. References the 9 June letter to Ryan York (NPG's written position on arboricultural, procedural and technical matters was to follow — never received) and the 7 June letter to Gareth Pearson as Director of Health, Safety and Training (five specific safety questions on isolation method and 2024 works — never answered). Noted that four weeks have passed. Asked how NPG intends to respond and when, requesting substantive response by 14 July 2026. Signalled that failing a response, these matters will form part of any subsequent Energy Ombudsman referral. Sent as new email rather than thread reply so Pearson (not on original York thread) has the full context. File: correspondence\Ryan-York-technical-chase-sent-2026-07-06.txt

Ryan York replied same day to the technical/safety chase. Stated he had "deliberately refrained from providing further responses recently" while internal processes were completed. NPG preparing a consolidated response covering "all aspects of the ongoing discussions" that will "clearly explain our position, outline the actions we intend to take, and set out the next steps." Committed to provide "within the timescales previously discussed" — deliberately ambiguous, does not confirm 14 July. Frames the recent volume as "significant amount of email correspondence in recent weeks" — misleading given Matthew's silence between 9 June and 6 July on the technical track. File: correspondence\Ryan-York-holding-response-received-2026-07-06.txt

Short reply to Ryan York welcoming the consolidated response but doing two things. First, correcting the framing: noted that since the letters of 7 and 9 June, Matthew has not pursued the substantive arboricultural, technical and safety matters raised in those letters — the four-week absence of response justifies today's chase, not any Matthew-generated volume. Second, asking Ryan York to confirm whether NPG expects to provide the consolidated response by 14 July 2026, or if not to state the intended date. Purpose: force a date commitment on the record ahead of Energy Ombudsman eligibility on 17 July. File: correspondence\Ryan-York-holding-reply-sent-2026-07-06.txt

Draft reply to Ryan York attaching the OCU WhatsApp screenshots from November 2024 with raw language ("They are not safe and they are rude, devious and not welcome. Please dont send them again."). Never sent — consistent with the standing position to hold the OCU text evidence for formal deployment. The evidence was instead deployed deliberately and forensically on 10 September 2026 (below). File: emails\2026-07-07_sent_Re_-RE_Outstanding-written-position-and-safety-questions-_-1.eml (Drafts folder)

Escalation draft prepared after two days of silence following the 6 July request for Ryan York to confirm the 14 July date. Notes that 33 working days had elapsed against the 10 working days per stage in NPG's own published complaints procedure. Asks for (1) a committed date for the consolidated response and (2) written confirmation that no works or preparatory steps will be progressed at 18 Sandal Avenue while the complaint remains outstanding. Signals an Energy Ombudsman referral at the earliest entitlement. The mailbox harvest of 6 October 2026 confirms this escalation was never sent; events overtook it when the final complaint response was issued dated 29 July 2026. File: correspondence\Ben-Hardy-escalation-draft.txt

Third SAR tranche received, covering the November 2024 works: the goodwill gesture letter of 21 November 2024, the 13 November 2024 OCU email chain and reinstatement photographs, the depotnet job record for OCU reference 161909, and Job Pack 161909_001 (nine pages, largely blank templates plus generic OCU guidance and a plan drawing).

What the tranche shows:

• Work Instruction sheet unsigned, mandatory requirements checklist unchecked
• Job Card / Work Sheet blank throughout — no arrival time, no test results, no jointer notes, no completion signature, no customer signature
• No Point of Work Risk Assessment, no Method Statement, no Arboricultural Method Statement
• No pre-works site photographs — every disclosed photo is labelled "Excavation: In Progress"
• The Customer Communications sheet relates to number 20, not to Mr Denison
• Depotnet records the job closed on 11 December 2024 as a "Duplicate Job", replaced by job reference 170372

Net effect: none of what was planned, what was agreed with Mr Denison, or what was actually carried out in November 2024 can be determined from NPG's own disclosed documentation. No separate received-file was saved for this tranche; its contents are recorded in the context notes of the clarification draft below and in notes\ombudsman-themes.txt (working Ombudsman themes document, last updated 10 July 2026).

Sent to Dataprotection and Garry Dando (CC: Ryan York) the same day the tranche arrived. Asks NPG to confirm, for each specified document (Point of Work Risk Assessment, completed Work Instruction, completed Job Card, Method Statement, Arboricultural Method Statement, pre-works photographs, survey records, job 170372 records, and a written description of authorised vs intended vs actual work), whether it (a) does not exist, (b) exists but has been withheld or redacted, or (c) was created but is no longer held. The sent version strengthened the on-disk draft: it quotes the disclosed statement that "the jointer had agreed on the work schedule during the initial survey" with no survey record disclosed, and queries the job description "Remove neighbour's cable from property" against work type "ASM — Asset Smart Metering". Never answered: Dando acknowledged it as "outstanding" on 23 July; chased 7 September; still unanswered as at 5 October 2026. Files: correspondence\Dando-10July-clarification-draft.txt · emails\2026-07-10_sent_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Subject-Access-Request-_-18-Sand.eml

The case file on disk originally contained nothing between 10 July and 5 October 2026. On 6 October 2026, 80 dispute emails (12 Nov 2024 to 5 Oct 2026) were harvested from the matt_toby@yahoo.com mailbox via IMAP into emails\ (index: emails\email-index.csv). The entries that follow are reconstructed from those emails. Notable: no Energy Ombudsman referral exists in the mailbox as at 5 October 2026, and NPG's final complaint response (dated 29 July 2026) appears in the mailbox only as an attachment to Heather Woodhead's email of 9 September 2026; whether a copy reached Mr Denison by post in July or August is still unconfirmed.

Records held from 22 May 2026 up to the 23 June 2026 follow-up date, attached per the commitment in the 5 July letter. Dando notes: "I also note your further follow up from 10 July remains outstanding. This is currently being considered, and a response will be provided as soon as possible." That response never came. File: emails\2026-07-23_received_RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Subject-Access-Request-_-18-Sandal-Avenue_-.eml

NPG's final response to complaint 260522-001146, signed by Paul McGinlay. This is evidently the "consolidated response" Ryan York promised on 6 July. Dated 29 July 2026; its first appearance in the mailbox is as an attachment to Heather Woodhead's email of 9 September 2026, so when Mr Denison actually first received it is unconfirmed. Key content:

• Critical admission on 2024: "I can confirm that we carried out an excavation within the boundary of your home on 4 November 2024; however, following your concerns raised on site, that the excavation was not in the area or size you agreed, no work was completed." NPG's own final response attributes the stoppage to Mr Denison's scope objections, not to the concrete.
• Martin Hall admission: having listened to the 22 May call, confirms Martin "did agree to copy you into an internal email... Regrettably this was incorrect information, and it is not Northern Powergrid's policy."
• 22 May letter: a "standard letter"; timing "given that we were aware of your holiday, was a poor choice"; feedback given to Andy and the Connections Team.
• Urgency reframed again: "We have not stated that the works are non-deferrable" (the 22 May letter said the works "cannot be delayed"). Works are "time sensitive" to meet the neighbour's Low Carbon Technology (LCT) installation schedule — confirming the private-benefit motivation.
• Safety basis stated: cannot leave a live cable in place where it no longer serves the property it passes through; a cable joint beneath a property is "not a practice permitted"; ESQCR compliance cited.
• Trees: relies on NJUG guidance (superseded by Street Works UK Vol 4, which Wakefield's Paul Casey confirmed applies); no AMS offered; council engagement "not necessary unless we determine that it is required".
• Works dates announced: excavation 9 September 2026, connection 10 September 2026 (later postponed again).
• Deadlock: "This letter constitutes our final response... we will carry out no further investigation into this matter." Energy Ombudsman rights signposted (0330 440 1624, enquiry@ombudsman.org). The 12-month Ombudsman window runs from this letter: deadline ~29 July 2027.

File: correspondence\McGinlay-final-complaint-response-2026-07-29.pdf (extracted from the 9 Sep Woodhead email)

Two months after the H&S letter, a frustrated seven-point draft to Gareth Pearson ("As such I can only assume it wasn't made safe... A charged cable in whole was left unprotected on my property for 2 weeks"). Never sent; replaced a month later by a short, calm chase. File: emails\2026-08-07_sent_Re_-Health-and-Safety-Concern-_-Works-at-18-Sandal-Avenue_-W.eml (Drafts folder)

Two near-identical one-line chases, both ending "Please could you ensure they are answered before anyone arrives on site" — three months after the Pearson questions and two months after the Dando clarification, with neither answered. Files: emails\2026-09-07_sent_Re_-RE_Health-and-Safety-Concern-_-Works-at-18-Sandal-Avenue.eml · emails\2026-09-07_sent_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Subject-Access-Request-_-18-Sand_2.eml

Heather Woodhead, General Manager for Domestic and Small Business Connections, takes over "following some recent changes within our senior leadership team" (Ryan York is never heard from again after 6 July). Key content:

• Neighbour's connection works postponed at that customer's request — revised programme: excavation 13 November 2026, jointing 16 November 2026; "no works are currently planned on your property as part of this phase"
• Attaches the final complaint response letter of 29 July 2026 (first appearance in the mailbox)
• Phase 2 framing: once the neighbour's works complete, NPG "will re-engage with you regarding the separate work required to disconnect and divert the existing arrangement associated with your property"
• Key concession on the 2024 records: "some of the specific details requested are not contained within the records available through the complaint investigation, and we are therefore unable to provide any further information"
• Requests all future correspondence be routed through her alone

File: emails\2026-09-09_received_RE_Re_-RE_Health-and-Safety-Concern-_-Works-at-18-Sandal-Ave.eml

Short, sharp reply (after five drafts that evening, per the Drafts folder): "The complaint response attached doesn't attempt to answer most of the questions in the email to Gareth below and nor should it. You are conflating the complaint with a direct question to Gareth which was deliberately kept separate. If @Gareth doesn't want to answer the question he should just say so." File: emails\2026-09-09_sent_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Health-and-Safety-Concern-_-Works-at-18-Sandal_6.eml

To Woodhead and Pearson, CC Dando. Sets out Mr Denison's understanding of the 2024 events as a numbered factual account (unannounced Saturday attendance; no pre-works photographs; no isolation; scope changed after excavation commenced; false emergency-reinstatement assurance; work abandoned on encountering the concrete and excavation left inadequately guarded across the only rear pedestrian access; OCU silence once agreement was refused; ~two weeks open with the cable exposed and, on the information available, still energised; three missed appointments; no RAMS and no survey record produced). Challenges NPG: "If Northern Powergrid considers any statement to be factually incorrect, please identify it specifically and provide the information or evidence upon which you rely." The reserved OCU WhatsApp screenshots are deployed here for the first time, including Mat's "Wasn't aware anyone was attending tomorrow" reply. NPG never identified any statement as incorrect. File: emails\2026-09-10_sent_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Health-and-Safety-Concern-_-Works-at-18-Sandal_2.eml

Does not dispute a single point of the 10 September factual account. Restates that the McGinlay letter "remains our final response", chides the wide CC list, reasserts herself as single point of contact, and says NPG "do not intend to reopen matters already considered through the complaint process". Notes she is "encouraged" by Mr Denison's willingness to engage on future works. File: emails\2026-09-15_received_RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Health-and-Safety-Concern-_-Works-at-18-San.eml

To Woodhead, Dando and Pearson: not asking to reopen the complaint; asking the H&S question Gareth undertook to answer. Core argument: "if Northern Powergrid cannot establish from its records how electrical infrastructure was made safe during excavation on my property, I would have expected that fact itself to trigger further Health and Safety enquiry... rather than simply accepting that the information is not there and treating the matter as closed. That seems particularly important before further works involving the same infrastructure are progressed." Accepts Woodhead as coordinator but expressly rejects her as an exclusive channel. File: emails\2026-09-16_sent_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Health-and-Safety-Concern-_-Works-at-18.eml

Acknowledges the distinction between complaint and H&S question, then declines both: no further information on the 2024 arrangements, and "we do not intend to reopen the complaint investigation". Future works will follow "current operational, engineering and safety requirements". File: emails\2026-09-23_received_RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Health-and-Safety-Concern-_-Works-at.eml

To Woodhead and Pearson. Explains why the H&S question was deliberately raised separately from the complaint, objects to the circular "complaint is closed" redirections (third occurrence), and distils the question: "Does Northern Powergrid's inability to establish how the electrical infrastructure was made safe during and following the November 2024 excavation itself warrant further enquiry by its Health and Safety function?" Lists eleven outstanding questions (agreed scope, authorised scope, actual works, why abandoned, how made safe, OCU silence, missed appointments, lessons learned, why the same location must be dug again, why the first written contact was a disconnection threat). Discloses that Mr Denison remortgaged his home partly to fund the now-completed landscaping, and states he will comply with any necessary wayleave or statutory access process while continuing to seek answers. This is the email the 5 October letter "thanks" him for. File: emails\2026-09-25_sent_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Health-and-Safety-Concern-_-Work.eml

Heather Woodhead's answer to the distilled H&S question of 25 September (originally logged as received 6 October; sender and date corrected after the mailbox harvest). The email: declares the November 2024 excavation was "discontinued after the cable was found to be encased in concrete"; asserts no work was carried out on the electrical network itself; asserts the excavation was subsequently reinstated; states no health and safety concerns have been identified "which would warrant further investigation by our Health and Safety function"; repeats that NPG "do not hold the level of operational detail" requested; declares further correspondence on 2024 unproductive; describes a two-phase programme (phase 1 at the neighbouring property, phase 2 addressing "the existing supply arrangement associated with your property") and asserts the works are "not a continuation of the 2024 excavation"; and offers a site meeting with operational management.

Internally contradictory: the letter makes four definitive factual assertions about the 2024 works (concrete discovery, no work on the network, reinstatement, no H&S concerns) while simultaneously stating NPG holds no operational detail about them. The disclosed 2024 Job Pack is blank paperwork. "No concerns which would warrant further investigation" is a decision not to investigate, worded to read as a finding of safety. It also contradicts NPG's own final complaint response of 29 July 2026, which attributed the 2024 stoppage to Mr Denison's concerns raised on site about area and size, not to the concrete. Full contradiction analysis in the entry below. Files: correspondence\Woodhead-HS-position-received-2026-10-05.txt · emails\2026-10-05_received_RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Re_-RE_Health-and-Safety-Concern-_-W.eml

Full analysis of the 5 October Woodhead email against the SAR disclosures and the eleven November 2024 call transcripts, with an addendum following the 6 October mailbox harvest. Key findings:

• "Discontinued after concrete found" is contradicted by NPG's own CRM. The 5 November 2024 call records OCU wanting "to dig another hole further down my property to try again" after the concrete was found; the CRM of 6 November 2024 records the job stopping when the engineer was "faced with rejection from the customer" over a changed scope. The letter erases both the proposed second excavation and the consent dispute.
• "No work on the electrical network" is unsupported by any disclosed record — the Job Card is blank; either a supporting record was withheld from the SAR or the claim is conjecture.
• "Subsequently reinstated" compresses an eleven-day failure — failed emergency booking, two missed appointments, Level 2 escalation, completion 13 November 2024, all in NPG's own complaint record.
• No isolation is evidenced for 2024 — the PowerON extract shows no supply interruption in November 2024, so the cable was live throughout, yet NPG's own 2026 plan treats Joint Hole B isolation as a precondition for excavating the same hole.
• "Not a continuation" conflicts with the depotnet record — the 2024 job was closed as a "Duplicate Job" and replaced by job 170372, and the letter itself describes phase 2 as addressing the same supply arrangement the 2024 job attempted.
• Addendum (mailbox harvest): NPG's own final complaint response of 29 July 2026 (McGinlay) stated the 2024 excavation stopped "following your concerns raised on site, that the excavation was not in the area or size you agreed" with "no work... completed" — NPG has now given two conflicting official accounts of the same stoppage ten weeks apart, and neither is supported by a single operational record.

Recommendations: brief reply rejecting the "discontinued" characterisation and asking NPG to identify the record behind each factual assertion; restate the four live meeting conditions (Saturday morning; reinstatement conditions in writing first; assessment only; disconnection threat withdrawn in writing); proceed to the Energy Ombudsman treating the letter as deadlock on the 2024 limb; update and send the Dando clarification; prepare the HSE concern. File: notes\2024-abandonment-analysis-2026-10-06.txt

Three decisions arise from Heather Woodhead's email of 5 October: (1) a brief reply to Woodhead rejecting the "discontinued" characterisation — now directly contradicted by NPG's own final complaint response of 29 July 2026 ("following your concerns raised on site... no work was completed") — asking NPG to identify the record behind each factual assertion, and including the standing accuracy principle notice; (2) the site meeting offer — accept in principle subject to the live conditions from 4 June 2026 (Saturday morning; section 4 reinstatement conditions confirmed in writing before the meeting; visit is assessment only, no works access; disconnection threat formally withdrawn in writing — the "after 21 June" condition is spent and the pre-22 May letter was disclosed via SAR on 5 July); (3) the Energy Ombudsman referral — the complaint was formally closed by the McGinlay final response of 29 July 2026, so the referral is open NOW with a deadline of ~29 July 2027. The Ombudsman submission should exhibit both conflicting NPG accounts of the 2024 stoppage. Phase 1 works at number 20 are scheduled for 13 November 2026 (excavation) and 16 November 2026 (jointing) — the supply question (whether those works affect Mr Denison's supply) remains unanswered since 2 June. Analysis: notes\2024-abandonment-analysis-2026-10-06.txt

Garry Dando confirmed 5 June 2026 that OCU Group is acting as data processor on behalf of Northern Powergrid as data controller. NPG's SAR response will include all relevant material held by OCU. A separate response from OCU is no longer required.

Third unanswered request for written confirmation that the 22 June 2026 appointment is formally cancelled in NPG's systems. First requested 22 May (Martin Hall — no response). Repeated in formal letter 1 June. This email also requests confirmation that no works affecting Mr Denison's property or electricity supply are scheduled for any date until the matters in the 1 June letter are resolved.

To: getconnected@, Andy.Balding@ · CC: martin.hall@, garry.dando@, paul.mcginlay@, louise.lowes@northernpowergrid.com

Saved: Personal\_output\NPG-cancellation-chase-2026-06-02.txt

Formal complaint submitted to cus.serv@northernpowergrid.com. 8-week Energy Ombudsman clock now running. Six grounds: (1) disconnection threat as first written communication; (2) unanswered written requests; (3) no notice or appointment before 2024 works; (4) 7-day deadline issued knowing Mr Denison was on holiday; (5) justification reframing; (6) inaccurate records. Also references 2024 complaint and pattern of conduct, including three missed reinstatement appointments.

Saved: Personal\_output\NPG-formal-complaint-2026-06-02.txt

Andy Balding responded confirming: (1) NPG will not carry out any work on Mr Denison's land without permission; (2) the works booked for 22 June 2026 are entirely at the neighbouring property and do not involve Mr Denison's land. Full written response to the 1 June letter is in preparation.

Strategic note: This response confirmed the land access point but did not address the direct question asked in the same email chain — whether the 22 June works would affect Mr Denison's electricity supply or connection. That question was asked twice (cancellation chase and supply query, both 2 June) and remains unanswered. The narrow framing may have been deliberate: designed to put Mr Denison's mind at rest while leaving the supply risk unaddressed. If the 22 June works do affect Mr Denison's supply, this becomes significant evidence. Reserved for Ofgem report — do not raise directly with NPG.

Brief acknowledgement putting both of Andy Balding's confirmations on record: (1) no works on Mr Denison's land without permission; (2) 22 June works entirely at neighbouring property. Full written response to 1 June letter still expected.

Saved: Personal\_output\NPG-acknowledgement-balding-2026-06-02.txt

Following Andy Balding's response (which confirmed no works on land but did not address the supply point), a direct yes/no question was sent: will the works at the neighbouring property on 22 June 2026 affect Mr Denison's electricity supply or connection in any way? No response received. Thursday 5 June chase ready to send if still unanswered.

Saved: Personal\_temp\npg-supply-query.txt · Chase ready: Personal\_temp\npg-thursday-chase.txt · Ofgem report ready if needed: Personal\_temp\ofgem-report.txt

Andy Balding provided his full written response on 2 June 2026. See main timeline entry dated 2 June 2026.

Paul McGinlay copied into the formal response letter of 31 May 2026. No separate escalation email required.

Within 5 working days of receiving Mr Denison's letter, NPG must confirm whether they still intend to refer the matter to their Legal Department. Deadline passed 8 June 2026. Ryan York's appointment as single point of contact on 8 June effectively superseded the direct referral question — his correspondence implies NPG are seeking resolution rather than immediate legal referral. No explicit confirmation of withdrawal received. Reserve if NPG reverts to legal posture.

Within 14 days of receiving Mr Denison's letter, NPG must provide written responses to the 9 requirements in section 6, including a plan showing the precise location of any proposed excavation. Deadline 15 June 2026. Ryan York's appointment has subsumed this track — his second reply correspondence will either address or defer these questions. If no substantive written position received from Ryan York by 15 June, reinstate the original deadline as a formal outstanding point.

Requested in Ben Hardy forwarding note (7 Jun) and Ryan York reply (8 Jun). Ryan York responded on 9 June with a conditional personal assurance: "no intention to disconnect at this point" but explicitly confirmed statutory powers remain available and tied the assurance to whether parties can "reasonably come to" agreement. The 10 June deadline has therefore been superseded, but the substantive point — no formal written withdrawal of the 22 May letter — remains unresolved.

Ryan York's conditional responses to the three meeting conditions (9 June) left all three unresolved in writing. His promised "consolidated response" materialised as the McGinlay final complaint response of 29 July 2026, whose arboricultural position relies on superseded NJUG guidance and offers no AMS. York was never heard from again after 6 July; Heather Woodhead replaced him as single point of contact on 9 September 2026 "following some recent changes within our senior leadership team". The design-stage questions (scheme selected before LAA consultation, RPAs not identified on plan, alternatives not assessed) remain unanswered and transfer to the Woodhead track and any Ombudsman referral.

Complaint raised 2 June 2026. Ben Hardy verbally committed on the 2 June call to responding within 30 days (deadline 2 July 2026) and was never heard from again. The final response was issued over the signature of Paul McGinlay, Director of Regional Operations, dated 29 July 2026 — 8 weeks and 1 day after the complaint, and beyond both the 30-day verbal commitment and NPG's published 10-working-day stage timescales. It declares itself NPG's final response with no further investigation, and signposts the Energy Ombudsman. The Ombudsman window runs 12 months from this letter: deadline ~29 July 2027. File: correspondence\McGinlay-final-complaint-response-2026-07-29.pdf

TPO refused 19 June 2026. Billy Harkin (Arboricultural Officer) responded; Paul Casey (Senior Arboricultural Officer) was the responsible officer. Canopy reduction finding confirmed as likely pre-dating 2011 in Billy Harkin's follow-up. Trees found to have relatively low amenity value under the Council's Amenity Assessment criteria. The TPO route is exhausted. NPG's obligations under Street Works UK Vol 4 Issue 3: 2026 — including the AMS requirement — are unaffected by this determination. Paul Casey's canopy reduction finding is independently recorded council evidence of the tree's condition and may be relevant to any future reinstatement or root damage argument.

The TPO letter sent to Wakefield Council on 5 June (CC: Andy Balding, Mark Appleyard, Paul McGinlay) required named directors to correct the record by return if anything was factually incorrect. No correction received. Every day without a correction is implied acceptance of Mr Denison's entire account — demand-led works, manufactured urgency, expired deadline, no AMS, no tree protection plan.

No further action required. Garry Dando confirmed 5 June 2026 that NPG as data controller will include all OCU material in its own SAR response. No separate chase to Dean Hogarth needed.

Partial response received 21 June (DSAR 024-26). Annex A covers 2024 CRM complaint file and PowerON record only. Full response including OCU records and accuracy correction outcome promised by 5 July 2026. The entire 2026 dispute (Connections correspondence, 21 May letter, RAMS, AMS, Ben Hardy notes, disconnection threat communications) is absent from the partial disclosure.

Check for these specific gaps on receipt:

• £100 payment letter — must be included. If absent, ask why
• Internal emails between Andy Balding, Mark Appleyard and Paul McGinlay discussing the dispute
• Ben Hardy investigation notes — including notes from the 2 June evening call
• Any internal communications about why the disconnection threat has not been withdrawn
• Instructions given to OCU regarding scope of 2024 works
• Site visit records from the pre-letter visit where the tree was seen
• Any internal communications about the AMS requirement and tree protection
• Any AMS produced — if present but never shared with Mr Denison, that is deliberate withholding; if absent entirely, that is a Street Works UK Vol 4 breach
• Any legal advice obtained — content may be withheld under LPP, but fact of advice sought must be disclosed

A thin response with no internal communications is itself evidence. Note what is absent as carefully as what is provided.

Formal letter sent 9 June 2026 asking: (1) was the 22 May correction request actioned? (2) what records does NPG hold in connection with the 21 May letter? (3) will all such records be included in the SAR response? (4) does NPG consider the document to form part of Mr Denison's customer file, and if not, on what basis? File: correspondence\Garry-Dando-sent-2026-06-09.txt

Ryan York confirmed on 9 June that the letter prepared for delivery on 21 May 2026 cannot be provided until Andy Balding returns from annual leave (week commencing 15 June 2026). Ryan York described it as a "letter template" and used the phrase "if it exists it will come" — both inconsistent with Andy's own written confirmation that the letter was prepared. Accuracy questions separately raised with Garry Dando.

No before or after photographs were taken during the 2024 reinstatement. No survey lines were marked. NPG and OCU have no documented record of the drainage profile or path gradient before or after those works. This undermines any "like for like" claim for future reinstatement — there is no baseline.

The cellar has been noticeably drier since the 2024 reinstatement, suggesting the works altered the run-off characteristics of the excavated area. Any future excavation carries the same risk in either direction.

Question to put to NPG: How did they ensure drainage and run-off matched the pre-works condition in 2024, and what steps will be taken to document and replicate drainage profile before any future works?

Gareth Pearson acknowledged the letter on Saturday 6 June and promised to "respond early next week" (9–10 June 2026). No substantive response received. Ryan York was appointed as single point of contact on 8 June, likely following Gareth's internal escalation over the weekend. The specific H&S and arboricultural questions — smart meter isolation alternative, 2024/2026 excavation inconsistency, RPA and AMS — remain unanswered. Do not chase Gareth directly while Ryan York correspondence is live; instead, note the outstanding Gareth Pearson commitment if Ryan York's written position fails to address those questions.

Update 6 Oct 2026: Gareth Pearson never answered, despite chases on 7 September (sent directly to him) and being copied throughout the September Woodhead thread. Heather Woodhead's email of 5 October 2026 is the only answer to date: it states the Health and Safety function has identified no concerns warranting further investigation while also stating NPG holds no operational detail about the 2024 works. The five Pearson questions themselves (isolation method in 2024, controls around the live cable, exposure during the open period) remain unanswered, and on NPG's own account are now unanswerable from records. This unlocks the external HSE route. See notes\2024-abandonment-analysis-2026-10-06.txt.