5 Crane Street: The End of the Road for Jayne’s Baby Bank

After months of disputed occupation, prohibition notices, arguments over rent, repeated claims that there was no eviction, and weeks of stock being carried out, 5 Crane Street in Pontypool has gone back to its owner.

The notice of 15 August

On 15 August 2026, MMB Property Development Ltd placed a public notice in the window of 5 Crane Street stating that it had taken possession of the premises. It says access is restricted, that the building has been secured because of identified health and safety risks, and that nobody unauthorised may enter until remedial works are done and Torfaen County Borough Council lifts the prohibition notice.

The notice identifies 5 Crane Street, Pontypool, NP4 6LY, refers to Prohibition Notice 004244, and mentions the previous tenancy of Jayne’s Mother and Baby Bank and Foodbank Fundraising Shop.

It does not, by itself, show the legal route by which possession was obtained, so this article does not call it a court eviction. What it does show is that the property company publicly stated, on 15 August, that it had taken possession.

What she said as she left

Her posts around the handover did not agree with each other. On 14 August:

P1 is about 2 cabinets away from being totally packed up. Landlord has the keys and is storing the rest of the donations and equipment for us. Not and eviction letter or hater in sight. Thank you to the landlord foe working with us.

Don’t leave any donations at p1 door way now for the foreseeable future please .

Pontypool task force – please leave our free stuff outside the shops because if it doesn’t go the weekend the landlord is doing a tip run.

Thanks everyone for supporting us for nearly 4 years in p1 – we will see you on the other side!!

Her page, 14 August 2026 (archive; spelling as published)

On the evening of 15 August: “Haters and fixators: you can stop picking on security now because he’s not at Crane Street. You were only doing it to make him leave so we had no help. We gave the shop back Friday you halfwits .” (archive)

And on 16 August:

And there is the proof.

No eviction. The council closed it for the landlord to fix the problem because it breached health and saftey at work for us as tenants. Thank you to the landlord for helping us move and save as much stock as possible and storing the rest for us.

Her page, 16 August 2026 (archive)

The council’s prohibition and the owner’s possession are different events. The prohibition stopped the premises being used until the risk was dealt with. The notice of 15 August records something separate: the owner said it had taken possession.

Her own videos show the leaving had been under way for weeks. On 10 August she said the landlord and his brother had been helping move stock, and added: “You’ve actually, you know, kicked me up the bum to get in the other shop a bit quicker.” In the same video, more than once: “I don’t want Crane Street.” And: “I made a massive boo-boo when I took on Crane Street.” (transcript)

The lease had already ended

The 2023 lease for 5 Crane Street began on 17 January 2023 and ran for a fixed term of three years, to 16 January 2026. The rent was £4,800 a year, or £400 a month. Clause 14 records an exclusion of security of tenure. The auction catalogue of December 2023 lists the same three-year term from 17 January 2023 at £4,800.

By the time the prohibition was served on 24 July, the fixed term had been over for more than six months. She said so herself on 27 July: “Our lease ended 16/1/26.” (archive)

On 18 July she had argued that the lack of a published renewal proved nothing: “You don’t know what arrangements I’ve got with landlords.” (transcript) She also argued that no landlord would leave someone with that much stock in a building without a lease. Whatever private arrangements may or may not have existed after 16 January, no new signed lease has been produced in the material we have seen.

Renew, or never wanted to?

On the night of 26 July she wrote that she “was happy to renew and they work around me” (archive). Seventeen hours later, on 27 July: “We don’t want to renew the lease and never did.” (archive). The earlier record runs the other way:

Between those two July posts, just after midnight, she gave her account of the Christmas Eve email:

So, on her own account, she was told on Christmas Eve to leave within 17 days, and three weeks later announced that all her leases were about to be renewed for three to five years. The same post says “That’s why we started kicking door ways through ;)”. Two days later she asked the landlord “to brick up the interconnecting door way as I don’t need it anymore” (archive). No Listed Building Consent has been found for the knock-through (Lights Out on Commercial Street).

After the prohibition, “never wanted it” became the line. On 30 July: “you’ve done me a favour because I’m more than happy to go round the corner where the shop is more visible” (transcript). On 1 August: “I got the shop I wanted, the one with the tunnels”, and the complaints about the building were “absolutely finally putting the nail in Crane Street” (transcript). On 10 August: “I don’t want Crane Street.”

The rent

Her account of the rent changed again and again:

This article does not decide whether rent was unpaid; that would need the financial records and, if disputed, the courts. What the record shows is that the explanation kept changing. The July prohibition cannot explain a rent gap that began earlier: her own “3 years, and 2 months after” takes the payments only to about mid-March 2026.

The leak was not new

The council’s documentation establishes how serious the building’s condition was in July, and this article does not dispute it. The question is when she knew.

• 25 November 2023: “Roof been leaking 456 days” (archive). That counts back to August 2022, before the 2023 lease began.
• 16 June 2026: the landlord “have had 24 hours access 7 days a week and not done anything and now ceilings are falling down due to the leak” (archive).
• 19 June 2026, filming inside: “look at that mould that we’re just getting worse with.” (transcript)
• 1 July 2026: “we are available at least 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for them to do work”, and, of stock: “These are all free because I can’t hang them up, see guys, because of the leak.” (transcript)
• 23 July 2026, the day before the prohibition: “yes, we did have historical damp and leaks, but nothing on the scale it is.” (transcript)

The fire service had been there first

The July action was not the first. In April 2026 we published 72 Pages of FOI Disclosures, from South Wales Fire and Rescue Service. At 5 Crane Street a professional Fire Risk Assessment of September 2025 graded the risk to life from fire as “Substantial”. It recorded excessive combustible stock, blocked escape routes, a damaged fire door propped open, defects in fire compartmentation, a faulty fire alarm panel, poor emergency lighting and no documented evacuation procedures.

Officers had been trying for more than a year. They recorded blocked access and excessive stock in January 2025, issued a fire safety letter and Schedule of Works in April 2025, came back after further concerns in June, and noted in September that “no actions appear to have been taken”. A Prohibition Notice stopped commercial use in March 2026. On a later visit, after reports that trading was carrying on, officers saw members of the public going in and stock and advertising boards outside, giving the “clear impression that the premises was open for business”.

The fire safety enforcement and the later damp and mould prohibition used different powers for different risks. What they share is the building: several regulators had acted at the same premises before it was finally secured.

The prohibition of 24 July

On 24 July 2026 the council served a Prohibition Notice under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 on Jayne’s Mother and Baby Bank and Foodbank Fundraising Shop, 5b Crane Street. The covering letter says the conditions there, “which you currently occupy and trade as” the baby bank, “present a serious risk of personal injury due to water penetration into the premises”, causing dampness and mould growth, and that the notice requires “the premises to be vacated and not to be reoccupied until remedial work has been carried out to address the risk”.

A second prohibition notice was served on MMB Property Development Ltd over the same matters. She concentrated on that one. That day, on video: “we wasn’t expecting council to turn up today, but they did, and they’ve issued the landlord with some sort of paperwork” (transcript), and: “There is nothing on the door at all.” (transcript). The next day: “Why didn’t they pick me up and drag me out and say, that’s it, you’re not squatting here anymore.” (transcript)

The narrow point was right: a prohibition notice is not an eviction notice, and it does not end a tenancy. But the landlord’s notice did not make hers disappear. The two notices put different duties on different parties: the owner had to deal with the matters in its notice, and the occupier could not go on using the premises while the prohibition applied. And the fixed term had already ended in January.

Moving the stock

Straight after the prohibition, she said the landlord was legally bound to take the stock out for her. On 26 July, on video, she called it a point on the “schedule of work”, and said that “If the stock is condemned, because it’s been deemed the landlord’s fault, he will have to dispose of the stock, and it’ll be toxic commercial waste.” (transcript) No document we have seen supports either point.

Within days it was teamwork. On 30 July: “landlord is working on transportation and storage. We are working together.” (archive). On 1 August: “myself, and the landlord, and his team, and employees, we’re working as a team.” (transcript). On 2 August: “2 vans full shifted to storage today – thank you to the landlord” (archive). On 9 August: “Thank you to the landlord and his brother and our volunteers today! 3 vans full shifted and sorted!” (archive)

At the same time goods were being put outside for anyone to take. On 26 July, the morning after the prohibition was announced, her page posted a notice to anyone who had been in the shop since November 2025:

“Contact GP for a baseline in respiratory problems and explain the situation.” The day before, she had posted: “Free trolley at p2 door way has loads in there please take what you want. Children please only take items you want home with you do not fly tip them.” (archive). The trolley was at P2, a different address, and we do not claim its stock came from the prohibited unit. The point is the timing: people who had been inside were told to see their GP while stock was being carried out and given away. In August her page also posted about taking nappies to a leisure centre and a hospital; she says those were bought new that weekend and “were never in p1” (archive).

Access and the police

In June and early July she said the landlord could get in at any time: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on 16 June, and at least 12 hours a day on 1 July. After the prohibition, on 25 July: “We have to lock the door because the fire don’t want anybody just walking in here.” (transcript)

A witness account in our original reporting said environmental health officers were given time to remove what they needed, and that entry was refused when they came back. That account was put to Torfaen County Borough Council. We record it as an account, not a finding.

On 29 July police attended the Crane Street frontage. A director of MMB Property Development Ltd was there, and goods were on the pavement. Her explanation: “Police tuned up because one of them lied and said there were children locked inside. I have a security team and volunteers inthe correct accessible areas. I’m at home having a day off.” (archive). What prompted the call has not been established here. Fire service papers also record earlier problems next door at Commercial Street, including locked external doors and stock blocking access inside.

Next door: 6 Commercial Street

5 Crane Street should not be confused with the adjoining 6 Commercial Street, the other half of the knocked-through shop. Commercial Street was separately the subject of SSE’s warrant to disconnect the electricity in June, and was taken back by its own landlord on 15 September.

The investigation holds first-hand accounts and unreleased images indicating that she was sleeping at the premises for weeks during this period, including at 6 Commercial Street, and there is a public trail of early-hours livestreams from the Pontypool shops. That material is being kept for evidential purposes and is not published here. Asked on 16 August whether she was sleeping at 6 Commercial Street, she answered on video: “We are squatting now in 6th commercial street. Like we were squatting in 5 Crane Street. Like we were squatting in all our other shops. Like I’m squatting in my house.” (transcript)

Raymond Derek Watkins was associated with the premises in a security role, and material held by this investigation places him at 6 Commercial Street during the clearance. Her own post of 15 August refers to him the same way: “you can stop picking on security now because he’s not at Crane Street.” According to published court reporting, Watkins was sentenced at Cardiff Crown Court in March 2013 to 15 months in prison after admitting six offences involving indecent images of children. Those offences did not happen at Jayne’s Baby Bank, and this article does not suggest they did. The relevance is his later role at the premises, set out in our report of 13 September.

August, day by day

• 1 August: she has “the shop I wanted”; stock is being moved and stored with the landlord.
• 2 August: “2 vans full shifted to storage today – thank you to the landlord.”
• 3 August: on video, stock packed for the landlord to move: “We are getting it ready for the landlord. And then he has taken it where it has got to go.” (transcript)
• 5 August: she says Torfaen Council closed one shop because of mould and the landlord had to remove stock to protect her from mould caused by roof damage.
• 8 August: she talks of the shop no longer being hers, and of the landlord and the remaining stock.
• 9 August: “3 vans full shifted and sorted!”
• 10 August: “I don’t want Crane Street”; the landlord is helping with storage and transport.
• 11 August: packing and salvaging stock while waiting to hear what happens to the rest (transcript).
• 13 August: a large amount emptied: “But we are now out of our own storage space.” (transcript)
• 14 August: “Landlord has the keys”; no more donations at P1.
• 15 August: the owner’s notice of possession. That evening: “We gave the shop back Friday.”
• 16 August: “No eviction”, with thanks to the landlord for moving and storing stock, and: “Any concerns with 5 crane street, Pontypool please contact the landlord.”

Put in order: lease expiry → talk of renewal → continued occupation → fire service prohibition → disputes over rent and access → health and safety prohibition → stock moved out with the landlord’s help → landlord holds the keys → notice of possession.

Established, and still a claim

Established by the material examined:

• The 2023 lease ran from 17 January 2023 to 16 January 2026, with an exclusion of security of tenure.
• A Prohibition Notice for water penetration, dampness and mould was served on 24 July 2026, requiring the premises to be vacated until remedial work was done; a second notice was served on MMB Property Development Ltd.
• Her own posts acknowledged leaks, damp and mould going back years.
• Stock was moved out during August, and she said the landlord had the keys before the notice was posted.
• MMB Property Development Ltd posted a notice dated 15 August 2026 stating that it had taken possession, that access is restricted and that the building is secured.
• The neighbouring 6 Commercial Street was separately subject to the electricity warrant, and photographs place Raymond Derek Watkins there during the clearance.

Still claims, or not established:

• Whether all rent was paid, and whether any private agreement existed after the lease ended.
• Whether the landlord was legally responsible for every defect, whether any compensation is owed, and whether the landlord rather than Jayne’s Baby Bank had to remove the stock.
• The legal route by which possession was obtained.
• What exactly happened over access on 24 July.
• The full extent of her overnight occupation, beyond the material this investigation holds.

What happened next

• 1 September 2026: “Fire prohibition on Crane Street is nothing to do with us anymore it has now been passed back to the landlord. As it wasn’t just amount of stock that was the prohibition.” (archive). On 18 July she had said: “And yes, we had too much stock and we had a smack on the wrist off the fire.” (transcript)
• 15 September 2026: the landlord of 6 Commercial Street takes it back (Four Shutters in Four Months).
• 11 October 2026: “Massive thank you to P1 landlord and his family helping us remove and transport the rest of P1 stock to our new warehouse” (archive).
• 24 October 2026: “We have sorted everything now from p1” (archive).
• 27 October 2026: “5 Crane Street and 6 Commercial street Pontypool are still refusing to give us all of our belonging and equiptment.” She asked followers to report the landlords to Health and Safety, Trading Standards and the fire service (archive).
• 31 October 2026: we published pictures from inside 5 Crane Street after it was taken back (Our Drones Went In).

The dossier records the Pontypool leases and the four shop recoveries in Finding 31.

Sources