In August 2025, Team Sherlock submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Torfaen County Borough Council regarding Jayne’s Baby Bank (JBB), a business operating from Pontypool — one of several sites across South Wales.The Council’s handling of the request — and JBB’s own public reaction — has since been escalated to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for independent review. In the process, documents disclosed under FOI have raised questions about how third-party consultation was conducted and how public claims should be verified against official and authoritative records.
At a Glance: What Happened
- 5 August 2025 — Team Sherlock filed an FOI about Jayne’s Baby Bank (JBB) with Torfaen Council.
- 22 August — The Council notified JBB of the request and its intention to release inspection reports.
- 27 August — JBB was sent draft attachments before the requester saw them. That same day, JBB posted on Facebook thanking the Council for “supporting us and giving them the bare minimum.”
- 2 September — The Council disclosed inspection reports, a land charges search, and complaint records to Team Sherlock. Business rates information was withheld (crime prevention and confidentiality exemptions).
- 2 September (evening) — Team Sherlock requested an internal review, challenging the advance disclosure.
- 8 September — The Council confirmed consultation with JBB, defended withholding business rates data, and stated no formal third-party consultation log exists.
- Escalation — Team Sherlock has referred the case to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for review.
Timeline of Events
5 August 2025 – FOI request filed
Team Sherlock requested records relating to Jayne’s Baby Bank, including inspection reports, licences or permits, contracts, council fees, and other operational documents.
22 August 2025 – Council contacts JBB
Torfaen Council emailed Jayne’s Baby Bank to notify them of the FOI. It said it intended to release inspection documentation from Trading Standards and Environmental Health, confirmed business rates information would be withheld, and invited JBB to comment by 29 August.
27 August 2025 – Draft attachments sent and Facebook post made
Council email: JBB was reassured that the requester’s identity would remain confidential and was sent attachments including inspection reports and complaint records. They were again invited to submit any comments before 29 August. This afforded JBB the opportunity to make representations about disclosure, including any objections or contextual explanations.
JBB Facebook post (27 August 2025): (publicly available at the time of writing)
“Info Sherlock is trying to post next about us. Thank you to Torfean Council for supporting us and giving them the bare minimum. All of which the council are satisfied with and have allowed us to carry on as normal and carry on trading.”
The post indicates that JBB had advance awareness of the FOI materials and took the opportunity to frame the outcome publicly before the requester received the same documents.
2 September 2025 – FOI response to Team Sherlock
Torfaen Council disclosed:
- Inspection reports:
- 04.07.2025 — Trading Standards recorded that JBB displayed a sign claiming to be a charity; the officer instructed that it be removed and flagged health and safety concerns about stock levels.
- 15.12.2023 — First inspection report described JBB as a “small charity shop, food bank” and noted: “Distributes food supplied by the Trussell Trust to people with food bank vouchers.”
- 21.02.2024 — Intelligence check following a formula product recall; no unsafe stock was found, and advice was given.
- Other records:
- 03.10.2023 complaint about possible trade waste.
- 04.12.2023 land charges search.
- 03.09.2024 allegation of trade waste dumping.
The Council confirmed it held no licences, permits, contracts, or council fee records.
Business rates information was withheld under FOIA sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 41 (information provided in confidence). To justify this, the Council pointed to risks of fraud and referenced instances of criminal misuse of disused commercial premises as an example of potential harm from disclosure. These examples were provided in general terms and were not specific to Jayne’s Baby Bank.
2 September 2025 (evening) – Internal review requested
Team Sherlock requested an internal review, raising concerns about advance disclosure to JBB and the lack of a detailed document schedule under FOIA section 17.
8 September 2025 – Internal review outcome
The Council’s Head of Legal Services confirmed consultation emails were sent to JBB, defended withholding business rates information, and stated that no third-party consultation log exists (only a general FOI tracking log). The Council relied on the Cabinet Office FOI Code of Practice (Part 3) to justify its approach to third-party consultation.
Trussell Trust Clarification (Why FOI Matters)
The 15 December 2023 inspection note recorded that JBB “distributes food supplied by the Trussell Trust to people with food bank vouchers”. Following publication planning, Team Sherlock sought direct confirmation from the Trussell Trust.
The Trussell Trust clarified to Team Sherlock:
“I can confirm that Jayne’s Baby Bank is not a Trussell foodbank and has never been. It does not fundraise or distribute food that has been donated to Trussell on behalf of any Trussell foodbanks in Wales, neither does it fundraise or distribute emergency food on behalf of Trussell.”
This clarification demonstrates the public value of FOI: it enables claims recorded in official notes to be tested against authoritative sources. Where a council record reports a purported affiliation, independent verification can confirm or correct the public understanding. The FOI materials, read alongside Trussell’s statement, therefore assist the public in distinguishing between a claim and the verified position.
Concerns Raised
- Advance access and representations — JBB received disclosure attachments before the requester and had an opportunity to make representations about release. This sequencing risks an imbalance in how the public first learns about the material, particularly when the subject publishes commentary ahead of disclosure to the requester.
- Public interest versus private interests — Business rates data was withheld under sections 31(1)(a) and 41 FOIA. In parallel, a recorded claim of Trussell affiliation in an inspection note was subsequently contradicted by the Trussell Trust. The contrast underscores the need to weigh the public interest in transparency carefully, especially where public claims or inferences may influence donors or service users.
- Inconsistency of practice — Other councils do not always notify third parties in advance in comparable circumstances. Divergent approaches can lead to inconsistent requester experience and outcomes across local authorities.
- Audit trail — No formal third-party consultation log was kept. Without a detailed record of any representations and how they were considered, it is harder to assess proportionality and fairness in the consultation process.
What Next?
Team Sherlock formally referred the matter to the ICO on 8 September 2025 for review. Key questions include whether the consultation was proportionate in the circumstances, whether the exemptions applied to business rates were justified on the evidence, and how councils should handle instances where claims captured in inspection notes are later contradicted by authoritative statements.
This article is based on documents disclosed by Torfaen County Borough Council under FOI Ref: 25/376, its internal review dated 8 September 2025, and a written clarification provided by the Trussell Trust. It is published by Team Sherlock in the public interest. This article does not constitute legal advice.
— Sherlock
Exemptions Timeline: Business Rates Data (FOI Ref 25/376)
This section summarises how Torfaen County Borough Council applied Freedom of Information Act 2000 exemptions over time in relation to business rates information concerning Jayne’s Baby Bank (Pontypool site).
2 September 2025 – Initial FOI response
Exemptions cited: Section 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) and Section 41 (Information provided in confidence).
Notes: The Council stated that disclosure of business rates information could prejudice crime prevention and detection, including risks of fraud. Section 41 was also applied, citing confidentiality expectations of business ratepayers. Other records, such as inspection reports, complaint records, and a land charges search, were disclosed.
8 September 2025 – Internal review outcome
Exemptions cited: Section 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) and Section 41 (Information provided in confidence).
Notes: The Head of Legal Services upheld the withholding of business rates information. The review confirmed that consultation with the subject of the FOI took place on 22 and 27 August 2025. It also stated that no dedicated consultation log exists, only an internal FOI tracking log. The Cabinet Office FOI Code of Practice was cited to justify the approach.
24 September 2025 – Follow-up Council email (13:56)
Exemptions cited: Section 41 (Information provided in confidence) only.
Notes: In this follow-up correspondence, the refusal was based solely on Section 41, with no mention of Section 31. This marked a departure from the earlier combined reliance on Section 31 and Section 41, highlighting an inconsistency in exemption use.
Why this matters
Disclaimer: This summary is based on official FOI correspondence disclosed by Torfaen County Borough Council. It is presented in the public interest. It does not constitute legal advice.
— Sherlock
In her video this morning in Caerphilly she states that she’s had some lovely furniture donated from a lady who is only around the corner, yet the same furniture was photographed and for sale outside the Pontypool shop yesterday!
https://www.tiktok.com/@beckysbazaar/video/7251270253039078683
The latest video by Jayne’s Baby Bank is not from one of her stores. It comes from another channel, and Carrie has simply placed her Jayne’s Baby Bank logos over the footage.
– Sherlock
The store in question isn’t even a charity shop. It’s called the De-Part- Mental store. It’s a house clearance warehouse in Mold in North Wales.
Yet more false advertising.
Follow-Up: Confrontation at Jayne’s Baby Bank Pontypool Store
A new incident has unfolded inside the Pontypool branch of Jayne’s Baby Bank, owned by Jayne Price (real name Carrie Anne Ridsdale). This confrontation involved Carrie Morgan, who had challenged Jayne the previous evening outside her home, and who returned to directly confront her inside the shop. A second woman accompanied Carrie Morgan and recorded the exchange.
At first the interaction looked like a normal enquiry. One of the women asked about clothing for a “two-year-old,” while another (Sammy) assisted by going through clothes on the racks. Soon, however, comments were made about health and safety hazards in the shop, and the conversation quickly turned to Jayne Price’s alleged remarks about a two-year-old being called “smelly” or an “urchin.”
The situation escalated with direct confrontation from Carrie Morgan:
The back-and-forth continued with shouting, insults and taunts of “what are you going to do?” The encounter ended with Jayne visibly shaken and pushing both Carrie Morgan and the woman recording in the chest before the group left the premises.
Video Transcript (Extract)
The following excerpt captures key moments from the incident at the Pontypool store (note: we cannot identify precisely who is speaking at each stage, but the exchange is between Jayne Price and Carrie Morgan, with another woman filming):
Jayne Price’s Response After the Incident
Soon after, Jayne went live on the Jayne’s Baby Bank Facebook page, confirming the altercation had taken place at the Pontypool store. She claimed she had attended the police station and thanked witnesses who provided statements:
She added that “regular customers” were also providing witness statements in her defence.
Context From the Day Before
VIDEO (Ending): https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Jaynes-Baby-Bank-Shop-Incident.mp4
This latest incident shows the dispute moving offline once again, with direct confrontation in a public retail space at the Pontypool store. Jayne Price’s own livestream confirmed police involvement and her claim of multiple witness statements. The situation remains live and under scrutiny.
– Sherlock
FYI Pontypool Police Station is not open on a Saturday. It is manned Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm, so she could not have been to the police station to make a complaint!
Breaking News: Today’s Car and CCTV Incident (Ongoing)
Earlier today, Ian Smith publicly claimed that Carrie Anne Ridsdale (also known as Jayne Price of Jayne’s Baby Bank) had her car windows smashed.
Carrie Anne’s Response
Carrie publicly denied the claim and said instead that her son Daniel had broken the handle cable on his door, which affected the electrics.
Videos Posted by Carrie
In videos uploaded earlier in the day, Carrie repeatedly referred to Ian as “Fred West” and addressed the claims.
She also named other individuals and referenced past disputes.
Livestream Escalation
Later in the day, Carrie livestreamed, scrolling through Ian Smith’s profile and reacting to people who had commented or liked his post.
Following this livestream, tensions escalated further. Teigan Morgan’s later post suggests her reaction stemmed from remarks made during Carrie’s online broadcasts or related exchanges earlier in the day, including references to her younger brother being called “smelly” or an “urchin.”
Encounter in the Caerphilly Shop
In addition to her online activity, Carrie also livestreamed an encounter with children inside her Caerphilly shop. This broadcast circulated publicly during the same period, adding to the day’s series of incidents and further fuelling commentary on social media.
Confrontation at the House
After the livestreams, two people appeared outside Carrie’s property. Carrie later shared an image which she claimed was taken from her CCTV and Ring doorbell system, stating that it showed the individuals shouting outside her home.
She stated that this was the fourth incident today.
Teigan Morgan’s Response
Teigan Morgan responded directly to Carrie’s earlier remarks and the later events outside the house:
Siany Shoe’s Response
Siany Shoe also posted:
Today’s Timeline So Far
This situation is ongoing with multiple public statements being made today.
– Sherlock
She’s so odd. First she said that it was something to do with the handle cable and then in her recently uploaded video showing some messages from a woman who asked for her kids photos to be taken down, she quite clearly says “smashing car windows because you can’t get your own way”
So were they smashed or was it actually the handle cable?? 🤣
Update: Conflicting Statements About the Car Damage
Since our earlier report, a fuller transcript has been shared (read the full transcript here) showing a detailed exchange between Danni and Jayne’sBaby Bank. Within this conversation, Carrie makes statements that directly contradict her earlier denial.
Morning (initial denial):
Later (in conversation with Danni):
The above creates a clear contradiction: in the morning she denied any damage, attributing the issue to her son Daniel, while later she alleged that “smashing car windows” took place and that she held CCTV evidence.
Other Legal Issues Raised in the Transcript
As more evidence emerges, these conflicting and potentially unlawful statements deepen questions around Jayne’sBaby Bank’s conduct and credibility.
– Sherlock
Wow, she’s referring to herself as a third person. F**king nuts. This woman is not safe. I’m thinking she has Dissociative identity disorder (DID). Fits the criteria.
It is upto the parents when they put a phot on social media, it is not upto a madwoman to share for rage bait.
Considering she advertises that her volunteers have to have DBS as they apparently “work” with children and families, this doesn’t sound like the sort of organisation that children and families should be affiliated or near.
If you are struggling, don’t let your children near this woman.
Carrie: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Carrie.png
We commend the effort of stepping in front of the camera openly. No filters, no hiding—just direct and in the open. This level of transparency is how it should have been from the start.
– Sherlock
RESPONSE TO LIVE VIDEO CLAIMS
The following analysis addresses claims made in a live broadcast by Carrie Anne Ridsdale (alias “Jayne Price”), concerning Team Sherlock’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Torfaen County Borough Council regarding Jayne’s Baby Bank (JBB). All commentary is based on disclosed documents, council correspondence, and official FOI procedures.
QUOTE (From the live video)
FACTUAL POSITION (Based on FOI Ref: 25/376)
1. Who made the request
2. Sequence of disclosure
Fact: The Council itself confirmed in the internal review outcome (8 September 2025) that JBB had been consulted and sent materials in advance.
3. Right to internal review
4. Reason for escalation
5. Why this matters
CONTRADICTIONS & MISREPRESENTATIONS
Fact: The Council’s internal review admits JBB was consulted and sent the attachments before the requester received them.
Fact: FOI appeal rights belong to the requester, not the subject of the request. JBB had no statutory right of appeal.
Fact: Requesting an internal review and referring to the ICO is a lawful, structured process under the Freedom of Information Act. It is a statutory right, not “picking on” a council.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
CONCLUSION
This case demonstrates a clear difference between public narrative and the factual FOI record.
This appears to illustrate a pattern of public statements minimising or reframing procedural safeguards, while the documentary record provides a more accurate account.
– Sherlock
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=550837021425978
The event is promoted as free, yet charges of 50p and £5 clearly apply. This contradiction may risk breaching the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which prohibit misleading advertising. The wording does not clearly explain which items are free and which are not, leaving customers potentially misled. We advise better clarity in future promotions to ensure compliance and maintain public trust.
Key Questions:
Why is the event promoted as free when charges apply?
Are customers given clear information about which items are genuinely free?
Does this advertising meet consumer protection standards for accuracy and transparency?
Sherlock
Wow! £10 a week subscription for one pack of nappies, 3 items of food and clothes that she cannot sell! What a rip off! From the glimpses of food in her foodbank 3 items would only cost less than £2 and you can get a pack of nappies for around £2.50 and then she asks that the clothes you pick are returned to her!
The woman is mad!!
Wow, she’s referring to herself as a third person. F**king nuts. This woman is not safe. I’m thinking she has Dissociative identity disorder (DID). Fits the criteria.
It is upto the parents when they put a phot on social media, it is not upto a madwoman to share for rage bait.
Considering she advertises that her volunteers have to have DBS as they apparently “work” with children and families, this doesn’t sound like the sort of organisation that children and families should be affiliated or near.
If you are struggling, don’t let your children near this woman.
URL: https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Profile/256cec
This appears to be the TripAdvisor profile of Carrie-Anne. A review of the content may reveal recurring themes in the feedback posted.
Supporting Proof (Timeline):
1 Dec 2022 – Video: https://www.facebook.com/100083342834915/videos/505985401492937
Later comment dated 25 Apr 2023 states: “we have waited 4 months”.
Video: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=650468000155665
Statement: “Bought the red panda experience.”
TripAdvisor Review: Mentions “we stayed in the red panda Lodge”.
Aligns with the “red panda experience” noted in the video.
TripAdvisor Review – Flamin’ Joe’s BBQ Co:
Carrie-Anne wrote: “The kitchen was stinking.”
Owner response (12 Dec 2023):
“Hi Ceriann of Jaynes Baby Bank… thanks for the false review.” – signed by Josef Minoli, Owner at Flamin’ Joe’s BBQ Co.
– Sherlock
Wow, so Torfaen council are saying JBB is authorised to distribute food on behalf of a registered food bank. Will be interesting to see the outcome.
Sounds like things are about to get more interesting for JBB now that she’s bringing the local authority under scrutiny.
Well done Sherlock.
The FOI does not say JBB is authorised to distribute food on behalf of a registered food bank.
It contains an inspection note from 15 December 2023 that recorded:
BEGIN QUOTE:::
Distributes food supplied by the Trussell Trust to people with food bank vouchers.
:::END QUOTE
The Trussell Trust have since confirmed in writing:
BEGIN QUOTE:::
Jayne’s Baby Bank is not a Trussell foodbank and has never been.
:::END QUOTE
The council record reflects a claim, not an authorisation, and that claim has now been directly contradicted.
– Sherlock
Surely now Torfaen Council should look more closely at this person and business. She is definitely not a good advert for Pontypool. She even compared Pontypool on one video to the Bronx!
SOURCE: https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/24938394.blackwood-dubbed-worse-bronx-due-violent-crime/
I believe she was referring to Blackwood during the barbershop incident.
Transcript: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=bronx&limit=50&sort_order=newest&search_type=all&open_transcript=20250815_1079741270557911.txt
– Sherlock
She says it about Pontypool in her video on 1st September 2025.
Yeah doesnt make sense when she has a exemption certificate from food standards agency. And apparently she is serving hot and cold drinks.
I’m sure the exemption is because she is only meant to be storing/selling/”giving away” dry foods.