Lights Out on Commercial Street: The JBB Warrant Explained

Update, 19 September 2026: Jayne’s Baby Bank has now published SSE’s own paperwork for this meter, on video. It answers the questions at the foot of this article. Jump to the update.

Early this morning, June 19, 2026, sources close to our team reported that SSE personnel arrived at 6 Commercial Street, Pontypool, equipped with a warrant to execute a meter check and disconnection. For those who do not closely follow our Exposed group, Jayne’s Baby Bank (JBB) in Pontypool operates across two separate shops that have been “knocked” into one – an alteration allegedly made without legal oversight within a Grade II listed building.

What unfolded throughout the morning was a chaotic sequence of events, verified by multiple independent sources, contrasted against a rapidly shifting public narrative from JBB.

Here is the breakdown of what happened, what was claimed, and the questions that remain unanswered.

The Morning Warrant Execution

The timeline began shortly after 09:00 when multiple independent sources confirmed SSE was on site at Commercial Street.

• 09:00 onwards: Observers noted a covert van, alongside two SSE representatives and a locksmith, arriving at the premises armed with a warrant for disconnection.
• The Standoff: According to eyewitness reports, a representative for JBB initially attempted to block entry, stating the shop was under a prohibition notice. The SSE officer reportedly replied simply, “I have a warrant.” A brief dispute over the specific wording of the warrant ensued before access was eventually granted.
• The Blackout: Shortly after SSE gained access to and entered the premises, multiple sources confirmed that the power had been cut in the Commercial Street shop, with lights going out entirely.

Context: The “Knocked Through” Confession and Grade II Legalities

To understand why the morning’s events resulted in such a chaotic aftermath of shifting excuses, it is vital to understand the physical state of the premises. The chaotic addressing and meter confusion cited by JBB later in the timeline makes much more sense when looking at the structural history of the site.

In a video recorded on October 30, 2025, a Carrie-Anne Ridsdale of JBB is seen walking through the property, openly documenting major, undocumented structural alterations between separately addressed units. In the footage, the narrator states: “So yeah, that’s Pontypool Phase 2 there, that’s Pontypool Phase 1 there, because they all connect to each other.”

When asked about the progress, the response is unambiguous: “Oh yeah, we’ve knocked through. I don’t mess around.”

The video also includes references to “salvaging” wood from next door and attempting to “teleport it to the other side” so they can “come in both sides now.”

The Legal Reality vs. The JBB Claims The property forms part of a historic Grade II listed building. Under the UK’s Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, it is a criminal offence to carry out works that alter the character, structure, or fabric of a listed building without obtaining the appropriate Listed Building Consent.

A search of the publicly available Torfaen planning records has identified no Listed Building Consent relating to the works shown in the October 2025 video. The documented act of “knocking through” separate commercial units to create a single interconnected premises would ordinarily require appropriate permissions and approvals. If no consent was obtained, such works may constitute a breach of historic conservation law.

Crucially, these undocumented alterations provide important context for the June 19 incident. Where separate commercial units have been physically connected, questions can arise regarding property boundaries, utility infrastructure, and meter identification.

A Timeline of Shifting Explanations

While the physical presence of SSE at the property is completely undisputed – even by JBB themselves – the official explanation for why they were there has changed no less than seven times within a matter of days.

Stage 1: Blaming Previous Tenants (June 15) Days before the warrant execution, JBB pre-emptively claimed: “The bill is the druggies who had the bottom shop before us and I pay my bill.”

Stage 2: The “Wrong Meter” Claim As SSE arrived on the 19th, JBB’s public post stated: “SSE bailiffs have been here today and we showed them our meter and it’s not the meter in question.” (Note: Given the unauthorised merging of units discussed above, utility companies facing a labyrinth of undocumented meters is highly plausible).

Stage 3: The Phantom Address The story quickly pivoted to property boundaries. JBB claimed SSE was actually looking for “1 Lion House.” However, property records confirm there is no known property addressed as “1 Lion House” within the building; the historic site consists of separately addressed commercial units.

Stage 4: The Octopus Energy Deflection In an attempt to prove their account was in good standing, JBB published a screenshot of an Octopus Energy portal reading: “Hi Jayne, Your energy balance £0.” While this was presented as evidence that no debt existed, it fundamentally ignored the core issue: the warrant was executed by SSE, not Octopus.

Stage 5: Blaming 2012 History Realising the current Octopus account didn’t explain the SSE warrant, the narrative shifted backwards in time. JBB stated: “Apparently the meter/bill was installed from 2012 so it’s Bournemouth Heights that need to be contacted about previous bills.”

Stage 6 & 7: The “Forced Entry” Strawman By the time JBB released their video statement, the narrative was completely reframed. In the footage, JBB can be heard explicitly asking SSE representatives: “So can I just confirm, you haven’t had to break in and change locks today?”

The SSE representative’s reply is quieter, but it is clear, and it is the most important line in the video: “All we were doing was disconnecting the supply.”

Asked on her own footage whether they had broken in, SSE answered with what they had actually done. They disconnected the supply. It is the one sentence in the video she did not repeat to her followers, and it is the direct answer to the question at the heart of this article.

This shifted the discussion away from the original reports. The original independent reporting never claimed SSE had broken in or changed the locks – only that they attended with a warrant and that a locksmith was present. JBB focused on debunking a claim that was never made.

The “Lights On” Illusion

Perhaps the most deceptive part of the day’s narrative was the visual “proof” JBB offered that their electricity was still connected.

In their video statement, JBB proudly declared, “And my electric is still on,” while showing working lights. However, property maps and observational reports note a critical discrepancy: the footage was recorded from the Crane Street side of the building.

Independent sources confirmed that the de-energised units were specifically on the Commercial Street side. Displaying working lights on Crane Street does nothing to disprove that the Commercial Street unit’s power was cut by SSE earlier that morning.

What We Know for Sure

Despite the smoke and mirrors, several facts are undeniably accepted by all parties – including JBB:

1. SSE attended the Commercial Street premises.
2. SSE brought a locksmith.
3. SSE entered the building and checked the meters.
4. Access was granted after a discussion regarding entry rights.
5. SSE disconnected a supply. Their representative says so on JBB’s own footage: “All we were doing was disconnecting the supply.”

The Outstanding Questions

The smokescreen of Octopus Energy screenshots, historic 2012 bills, and non-existent “1 Lion House” addresses cannot hide the central issue. The primary dispute is no longer whether SSE attended the property.

The public deserves to know:

• Why exactly did SSE attend?
• Was a warrant for disconnection executed on the Commercial Street meter?
• If everything was above board, legal, and there were no issues with the meter or account, why had access apparently not been granted during previous attempts?
• If there were no problems to resolve, why was such an effort reportedly made to prevent entry on the morning in question, including claims that nobody was permitted inside due to the prohibition notice?
• If there were no irregularities or debts, why did power appear to go out at the Commercial Street shop?

Until these questions are answered with genuine documentation rather than shifting excuses, the true nature of SSE’s morning visit remains cast in shadow.

Update, 19 September 2026: She Opened SSE’s Post on Camera. It Answers Our Questions.

Three months after SSE cut the power on Commercial Street, the questions at the foot of this article have been answered. Not by SSE, not by the landlord, and not by any document this site obtained. They were answered by Jayne’s Baby Bank, on video, holding SSE’s own paperwork up to the camera.

The video was posted to the Jayne’s Baby Bank Facebook page on 15 September 2026 – the day the landlord took back 6 Commercial Street. It opens with her son, Dan, clearing the downstairs of P2, and a bundle of SSE envelopes, at least five of them, that were, in her words, “stuck in a letter box they were. They hadn’t actually come through.”

It was not filmed on 15 September. The landlord had possession from the early hours of that morning, and she was not in the building. It was published that day alongside a batch of older footage from P1 and P2, all of it shot at some earlier point to document problems with the premises. Our best estimate, and we state it as an estimate, is that this one was recorded on 19 June 2026, the day SSE executed the warrant and the day this article was first published. Two things point to it. In the video she talks about SSE’s visit as that day’s news, with the footage of it fresh on her phone. And the address she reads off these envelopes, “Unit 1, Lion House”, first appeared in her public posts on 19 June, as the “phantom address” in Stage 3 above. She did not get that address from SSE’s officers. She got it from the envelopes in her hand. Then she sat on the footage for three months.

What she says

She reads the envelopes aloud and reaches her verdict before the first one is open:

“Notification of applicant for a warrant to enter Unit 1, Lyon House, Pontypool Street. Discount deals. Look, see, it’s not us.”

“So, it wasn’t us, guys, the warrant was for. It was for discount deals.”

“5,735 pounds, 17 pence, owed by discount deals.”

Between those lines is a passage addressed to this site. We reproduce it verbatim:

“I hate to say it again, and I know, Sherlock, I’ve had to have a couple of days off rest and recuperation. You little pussy. You little bitch. You’re going to have a couple of days off rest and recuperation, really? Get up and fight, you bitch. If you can’t take the heat, get out the kitchen, because right now, everything you’ve said is being proved wrong.”

And the closing position:

“But, like I said, you guys, I don’t lie. I do make mistakes.”

What follows is what the paperwork in her hand actually says.

What the paperwork says

At least five SSE envelopes pass through the frame. Four documents are legible. All are SSE Energy Solutions paperwork for one electricity account, and all carry the same address.

The envelope. “Discount Deals PVT Ltd, Unit 1 Lion House, Commercial Street, Pontypool, Gwent, NP4 6JJ.”

The invoice: 1 February 2026 to 28 February 2026. Site reference AGR1196766. Units: 326.90 kWh. Energy including standing charge: £199.40.

The foot of the same invoice. Balance brought forward from previous invoice: £5,525.80. Payment due: £5,735.17.

The warrant notice, dated 13 March 2026. From SSE Energy Solutions, Warrants Team, PO Box 3309, One Forbury Place, Reading. Customer account 8700420499. Addressed to “Discount Deals PVT Ltd/The Occupier”.

The reply slip from the same notice. “You must return this notice by 03/04/2026 to Warrants Team PO Box 3309 READING. If you do not return [it by that] date, or fail to attend court, the court will decide the application for a warrant of entry in your absence.”

The notice is worth reading in full, because she did not read it out. It is headed “NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT OF ENTRY AT: Unit 1 Lion House Commercial Street PONTYPOOL Gwent NP4 6JJ”, and it begins:

“Dear Discount Deals PVT Ltd/ The Occupier

Our records indicate that you still haven’t paid your outstanding invoices, despite our recent visit to your property and previous correspondence.

As we haven’t been able to gain access to your property, it’s now our intention to apply for a warrant of entry under the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 from the Magistrates Court, which you’ll be charged for.”

It is signed by SSE’s Credit Management team. Three things in it matter.

“The Occupier.” SSE did not write to Discount Deals alone. It wrote to whoever was occupying Unit 1, Lion House, Commercial Street. In March 2026 that was Jayne’s Baby Bank. The letter was addressed to her.

“Despite our recent visit to your property and previous correspondence.” By 13 March 2026 SSE had already been to the premises, and had already written. The five envelopes in the video are that correspondence. This was not one letter that slipped behind a flap.

NP4 6JJ. The postcode on every envelope is the postcode on the landlord’s Formal Notice taped inside the window of 6 Commercial Street on 15 September: “Premises: 6 Commercial Street, Pontypool, NP4 6JJ.” Same building. Same postcode. Same shop.

Now the arithmetic, because it matters:

• Payment due £5,735.17, less balance brought forward £5,525.80, is £209.37.
• February’s energy charge of £199.40, plus VAT at 5%, is £209.37.

The debt SSE went to court over was not a fossil from a previous tenant. It was still growing in February 2026, by exactly one month’s metered consumption.

1. February 2026 was her occupation, not Discount Deals’

Put the invoice period against the timeline this site has already established:

Whoever Discount Deals were, they were not in the building in February 2026. By her own account they were long gone: “the druggies who had the bottom shop before us” in June, “the ones who had the weed farm” in September. The public record goes further than her account. Companies House shows Discount Deals Pvt Ltd, company number 14805585, applied for voluntary strike-off on 3 July 2024 and was dissolved on 1 October 2024. That is 26 days before the 6 Commercial Street lease was signed on 27 October 2024, a date this site has already established from the lease itself. The company on the envelope had ceased to exist before she moved in.

A dissolved company cannot run a shop, and it cannot use electricity. From the day the lease began, the only occupier of 6 Commercial Street was Jayne’s Baby Bank. By February 2026 it had been there for fifteen months, had knocked the units through, and was filling P2 and P3 with stock.

A meter inside that building recorded 326.90 units between 1 and 28 February 2026. That is roughly 11.7 kWh a day. A disused supply in an empty unit does not do that. A de-energised supply does not do that. Something was plugged into it, and drawing on it, every day of that month.

That leaves a short list of explanations, and “not my bill” is not on it:

• The Discount Deals account was never closed when the company folded, the supply kept running into premises Jayne’s Baby Bank occupied, and a dead company’s name simply stayed on the envelope; or
• somebody chose to keep that supply alive under the name of a company that no longer existed, precisely so that the envelope would say something other than hers.

Which of those it is, we do not know. What we can say is the law’s position on the first. Under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Electricity Act 1989, where electricity is supplied to premises other than under a contract, the supplier is deemed to have contracted with the occupier of those premises for that supply. (We are not lawyers and this is not legal advice.) The name printed on the envelope does not decide who is liable for electricity used in a building. Occupation does. If a meter in premises you occupy is recording consumption, you are the person the law looks to for it, whatever the bill says on the front.

She has published the evidence that this meter was recording consumption during her occupation, and told her followers it proves the opposite.

2. She had months of notice, addressed to her

The warrant notice is the document that matters most for the questions we asked in June. It is dated 13 March 2026. It carries a return date of 3 April 2026, and it spells out the consequence of ignoring it: “the court will decide the application for a warrant of entry in your absence.”

Before an energy supplier can obtain a warrant of entry from a magistrates’ court under the 1954 Act, the occupier of the premises is notified and given the opportunity to object and to attend the hearing. That is what this letter is, and it says so. It was addressed to “The Occupier”. It was delivered to the shop Jayne’s Baby Bank was trading from, in March. It followed a visit and earlier letters. It sat there through April. It sat there through May. It was there on the morning of 19 June, when a Jayne’s Baby Bank representative stood in the doorway telling SSE that nobody could come in because of the prohibition notice. On our best estimate it was opened, on camera, later that same day, after the power had already gone off.

“They hadn’t actually come through” is not a defence. Five envelopes from the same supplier, spanning months, and a letter that refers to a visit and to earlier correspondence, are not one item wedged behind a flap. They are a paper trail that was received, accumulated and not opened until the warrant it warned of had been executed.

In June we asked: if everything was above board, why had access apparently not been granted during previous attempts? Here is the answer, in SSE’s own words: “As we haven’t been able to gain access to your property.” SSE visited. SSE wrote. SSE wrote again, to the occupier, naming the Act and the court. Nobody at Jayne’s Baby Bank opened the post.

3. “1 Lion House” exists. It is her building.

In June we wrote that property records showed no known property addressed as “1 Lion House”. We should have been more precise, and we correct it here.

Lion House is the historic name of the block on the corner of Commercial Street and Crane Street. It was the White Lion tavern until around 1840, then Fowler’s store, which named the building after the pub. A stone lion stood out over Commercial Street from the upper floor for decades. The block was later carved up into the separately addressed units that make up the corner today, among them 6 Commercial Street and 5 Crane Street.

So there is no freestanding “1 Lion House” on a map, and there never was. What exists is a supplier’s site label for one meter inside the old Lion House block, at postcode NP4 6JJ, which is the postcode of 6 Commercial Street. That is the block Jayne’s Baby Bank occupied from both sides and knocked through in the middle.

SSE found that meter on 19 June. She told her followers exactly where:

“They checked the meter up here. It wasn’t the meter up here. And then they went downstairs, they said, there’s another meter in one of these buildings… So, they went round all the rooms looking for meters, ones they could get in properly, all upstairs in P3. And they eventually found it, I think, on a side part that we couldn’t access.”

The meter carrying the Discount Deals name is inside the premises Jayne’s Baby Bank occupied, in the part she calls P3. P3 is the upper floors she filled with donated stock without ever holding a lease for them, as she said on camera more than once. “It’s not us” and “it’s in our building” are, in this case, the same sentence.

One more thing follows from her own account. If the meter SSE de-energised served “a side part that we couldn’t access”, the lights in the Commercial Street shop should have stayed on. They did not. Multiple sources confirmed on the morning of 19 June that the Commercial Street unit went dark. A meter that only fed an inaccessible side room does not black out a shop floor.

4. £15,000 became £5,735.17

Her “ballpark” for the debt, offered in the same video, was second-hand: “the lad that works in the vape shop said that they had a bill in for 15,000.”

The figure on the invoice in her hand is £5,735.17. Of that, £5,525.80 was brought forward from earlier invoices, and £209.37 was February 2026. Whether “15,000” was ever a real number for anything, we cannot say. It is not this account, and it is not this bill.

5. “Let me see if this letter will fall open”

Twice in the video she raises the question of whether she should be doing this at all. “I don’t know if I’m allowed to open them.” Then, a little later: “Let me see if this letter will fall open now.”

The camera is then put down. On the audio, the envelope is torn open.

The letters are addressed to a third party. She asked the question on camera and answered it off camera.

“Everything you’ve said is being proved wrong”

Between 15 and 19 June the Jayne’s Baby Bank page gave seven explanations for SSE’s visit. On 15 September it published an eighth, filmed in all likelihood on 19 June itself: the letters prove it was never us. Which means the “1 Lion House” explanation of 19 June was not a guess or a misunderstanding. It was read off an envelope addressed to the occupier of her own shop, at her own postcode, and presented to her followers as somewhere else.

The letters show a meter in her building, at her postcode, consuming electricity during her occupation, in the name of a company dissolved before she moved in, on an account whose warrant notice was addressed to “The Occupier” and delivered to her shop in March, and which was disconnected under that warrant in June. Every fact this article reported on 19 June stands, and SSE’s own representative confirmed the central one on her own footage that day: “All we were doing was disconnecting the supply.” The one new fact is that she was billed, in February, for electricity used in a shop she was running, and has now published the invoice.

“Everything you’ve said is being proved wrong” was said while holding the proof that it was not.

The questions, updated

• What was connected to the meter SSE found in P3 between 1 and 28 February 2026, and who was using it?
• Did anyone at Jayne’s Baby Bank contact SSE after 19 June, or after finding the letters?
• If that meter served only “a side part that we couldn’t access”, why did the Commercial Street shop floor go dark?
• Has a supply contract for that meter ever been taken out in her name, or in the name of the community interest company?
• Why did at least five SSE letters, including a warrant notice addressed to “The Occupier” with a return date of 3 April, go unopened in a trading shop until the day SSE came back with the warrant?
• Why was footage that shows her reading the address, the account and the balance in June held back until the day she lost the building?
• When SSE made the “recent visit” the notice refers to, who answered the door, and what were they told?

Until those are answered, the position is exactly where we left it in June, with one difference. The documentation we asked for has now been published. She published it herself.

Sources for this update: Jayne’s Baby Bank Facebook video published 15 September 2026, transcribed and reproduced above. The recording date of 19 June 2026 is this site’s estimate, on the grounds set out above, and is not stated in the video. SSE Energy Solutions paperwork as shown in that footage; figures and dates are transcribed from the frames reproduced here. History of Lion House: “Lion House”, Commercial Street, Pontypool (Flickr, 2010); Coflein record for Lion Buildings, Pontypool. Dissolution of Discount Deals Pvt Ltd: Companies House filing history, company 14805585. Lease date: Four Shutters in Four Months, 15 September 2026. Electricity Act 1989, Schedule 6, paragraph 3.

Sherlock…