Four Shutters in Four Months: 6 Commercial Street Closes

In the early hours of Tuesday 15 September 2026, the landlord of 6 Commercial Street, Pontypool took his building back. The notice now taped inside the window names the former tenant as Carrie-Anne Ridsdale — the name she has spent years insisting is not hers. It records a lease that expired on 26 October 2025. That is 324 days ago. It is the fourth Jayne’s Baby Bank shop lost in four months — and it was the last one.

Updated 20 September 2026. Jayne’s Baby Bank now says it was “evacuated, not evicted”, and has published an official notice to support it. The notice it published is a retyped version of the prohibition notice served on a different building, relabelled an “evacuation notice” — a class of notice that does not exist under the Act it cites. The comparison is set out at the end of this report.

The early hours

The landlord attended 6 Commercial Street before the town was awake. By the time the shutters on Commercial Street went up for the rest of Pontypool, two sheets of A4 were taped to the inside of the Jayne’s Baby Bank window, facing out over a rail of children’s coats and a shelf of bric-a-brac still priced up for sale.

The stock is still in there. The price tags are still on it. What is no longer in there is any right to sell it.

What the notice actually says

It is headed, in full:

FORMAL NOTICE
EXPIRED COMMERCIAL TENANCY — NO UNAUTHORISED ACCESS

Premises: 6 Commercial Street, Pontypool, NP4 6JJ
Date: 15 September 2026
Former Tenant: Carrie-Anne Ridsdale
Landlord: Nasrat Shoaib

It opens “Dear Ms Ridsdale,” and then sets out, clause by clause, why she is no longer a tenant. Not why she is being evicted. Why she stopped being a tenant last October.

1. Expiry of the tenancy

Under Clause 1 of the Lease, the contractual term was for one year from and including 27 October 2024. The contractual term therefore expired on 26 October 2025.

In particular, Clause 8 provides that at the end of the Term the Tenant must: yield up the Property and the relevant fixtures and fittings in the condition required by the Lease; and vacate the Property and remove all of the Tenant’s items from the Property.

Accordingly, the tenancy has expired and you have no continuing contractual right to occupy, operate from, or otherwise use the premises.

2. No unauthorised access

The notice then closes every door, and it closes them in a level of detail that tells you what the landlord expected to happen next:

You are formally notified that you must not enter, attempt to enter, or arrange for any other person to enter the premises without the Landlord’s prior express permission.

This includes, without limitation:

• forcing or attempting to force entry;
• interfering with, bypassing or damaging the locks or security arrangements;
• using or obtaining keys or other means of access without authorisation;
• entering through or with the assistance of a third party; or
• instructing, encouraging or permitting another person to enter on your behalf.

The Landlord reserves the right, where appropriate, to notify the police and/or take appropriate legal action.

Read that list again. It is not boilerplate. Somebody sat down and specifically anticipated keys being used, locks being bypassed, and other people being sent in on her behalf. Anyone who has followed this story for the last three years will recognise every single line of it.

5. No continuing right to trade

As the contractual term has expired, you are not authorised to continue operating your business from the premises or to use the premises for business purposes.

You must not attend the premises for the purpose of trading, serving customers, accessing stock or equipment, or conducting business activities without the Landlord’s prior express authorisation.

Clause 4 of the notice gives her 21 days from 15 September — so until 6 October 2026 — to contact the landlord’s named representative and arrange collection of stock, equipment, records and fixtures. By appointment only. Arranged in advance. Landlord’s express permission required. And the notice is explicit that being let in to collect boxes does not hand anything back:

It will not constitute permission to resume trading, occupation or possession of the premises, and will not create or revive any tenancy, licence or other right of occupation.

It is signed by the landlord and dated 15 September 2026. (We have redacted the collection telephone number and email address that appear on the public notice. They belong to the landlord’s representative, not to Jayne’s Baby Bank, and he is not the story.)

324 days

This is the fact that swallows every other argument, so it is worth isolating.

Three hundred and twenty-four days. Ten and a half months. An entire Christmas trading period, an entire spring, an entire summer — run out of a shop she had no contractual right to be in.

Every dispute of the last year now has to be re-read against that date:

• When SSE arrived on 19 June 2026 with a warrant, a locksmith and a van, and a Jayne’s Baby Bank representative stood in the doorway trying to block entry — the lease had already been dead for 236 days. (Lights Out on Commercial Street: The JBB Warrant Explained)
• When the arguments raged over rent, over “we have always paid our rent”, over “I haven’t got to pay any rent” — the term had already expired.
• When the prohibition notices were being waved at anyone who came to the door as proof that the landlord was the problem — the term had already expired.
• When she was telling followers in August that Crane Street had been “given back” and there was no eviction — the Commercial Street term had already been expired for nine months. (5 Crane Street: The End of the Road)

There was never a fight to win here. There was a clock, it ran out on 26 October 2025, and everything since has been noise laid over the top of an expired piece of paper.

“Former Tenant: Carrie-Anne Ridsdale”

Four words on a shop window in Pontypool that end an argument she has been running for three years.

The public position has always been that “Carrie-Anne Ridsdale” is somebody else. A mistake. A mix-up. Someone else’s paperwork. When a County Court Judgment for £7,141 surfaced against Ceri-Ann Ridsdale t/as Jayne’s Baby Bank, the response was that it was “not even my name”, and that there were no legal documents connected to the operation at all. When a second, unsatisfied CCJ for £277 was entered against MISS CARRIE-ANNE RIDSDALE at the Civil National Business Centre on 27 January 2026, the same denial held. We covered that in full on 15 May.

A credit file can be dismissed as an error. A court register can be dismissed as somebody else’s. This cannot.

This is a lease. It is a private contract between two parties. Somebody sat opposite that landlord on 27 October 2024 and signed it. The landlord’s notice does not guess at a name, and it does not lift one off a database — it names the person on his own lease, addresses her directly as “Dear Ms Ridsdale”, and tapes it to the window of the shop she has been running under the name “Jayne Price”.

You cannot be the tenant and not be the tenant. Either Carrie-Anne Ridsdale signed that lease and has been trading from that building — or Jayne’s Baby Bank has spent 324 days occupying premises let to a woman it claims to have nothing to do with. There is no third answer.

The man inside, and the £40

The landlord did not find an empty shop.

Inside the premises in the early hours was the man we identified on 13 September: Raymond Derek Watkins, also known as Ray Ipac and as “Patrick”. In March 2013 at Cardiff Crown Court he was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment after admitting six offences of accessing, making and possessing indecent images of children of the most serious category. He also pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl. He was made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order barring him from being alone with any child under 16, and placed on the sex offenders’ register for ten years.

Jayne’s Baby Bank gave him a key, a job title, and somewhere to sleep. Two days after we published that, he was still in the building overnight.

According to the landlord’s account, the negotiation for possession of the last Jayne’s Baby Bank shop front in Wales went like this: he offered the man £40 to leave. The man accepted, and walked out.

He was seen shortly afterwards in Greggs, spending it.

That is the whole operation, in one transaction. Three years of “Head of Security”. Three years of a “Homeless and Vulnerable Co-ordinator” role announced for September. A shop full of donated baby clothes, given by the public, in a building with no lease. And it ended with a convicted child sex offender being handed two twenty-pound notes on a Pontypool pavement and walking to the bakery.

Fact vs. claim

Within hours of the closure being disclosed in the Jayne’s Baby Bank Exposed group, this appeared on the Jayne’s Baby Bank page:

“Fire prohibition up for the landlords today and the council have ordered the work to be completed ASAP. The owness [sic] has been passed back to the landlords. We did our work required by the prohibitions….

Any way … Donation centre 2 sneak peak ??? Maybe! Maybe! its got double doors to offload donations off the back of a truck!

(Only us pair would be in an attic in some random building – lol)”

Jaynesbabybank Registered – cic, 15 September 2026

Not one word of it is about what happened.

This is the same move every time, and by now it is almost a reflex. Caerphilly was a landlord who would not let her collect her things. Risca was not a repossession — and when the Torts notice ran out and a clearance crew had to empty the building, the line was that “the landlord stopped us from collecting in the designated time period”, an assertion for which we have never been shown a single document. Crane Street was not an eviction, it was “given back”. Commercial Street is not a closure, it is the landlord’s fire safety problem. And look — a new building! Double doors! Off the back of a truck!

The pattern is not sophisticated. Post something shinier than the thing you are standing in front of, and hope the audience looks at the sneak peek instead of the shutter.

Commercial Street was already running on borrowed time

Today was not a bolt from the blue. 6 Commercial Street has been the subject of enforcement all year.

On 19 June 2026, SSE arrived at around 9am with a meter check and disconnection warrant, a locksmith and a van. A Jayne’s Baby Bank representative attempted to block the doorway, citing a prohibition notice. The officer’s reply became the line of the summer:

“I have a warrant.”

The power went off. What followed was seven separate and mutually incompatible explanations — previous tenants, the wrong meter, addresses that do not exist, unrelated energy screenshots, bills from 2012, and finally a claim that the whole thing had been a “forced entry”. The full account is here.

And there is the matter of the wall. 6 Commercial Street and 5 Crane Street are separate units in a Grade II listed building. They were knocked through. On camera, in October 2025:

“Oh yeah, we’ve knocked through. I don’t mess around.”

“So yeah, that’s Pontypool Phase 2 there…because they all connect to each other.”

Carrie-Anne Ridsdale, October 2025

“Pontypool Phase 2” is now two empty units with notices in the windows and two landlords who want their buildings back.

Four shutters since May

Four months. Four buildings. Three towns. Every one of them taken back by the person who owned it.

Not one of those four was a decision she made. Every single one was a landlord arriving to take back a building she had no remaining right to be in. And in Caerphilly, in Risca and at Crane Street alike, the donated stock ended up being dealt with by somebody else, because none of it was collected when it could have been.

What is left

One unit. Newbridge.

It is under a fire service prohibition. Members of the public are not permitted to enter it. It is full to the doors, and has been for several weeks, with stock stacked outside the unit — donated goods, given by local people for local families, sitting in the open air against a wall.

That is not a shop. Nobody can go in it. Nothing can be sold from it. It is a storage problem with a prohibition notice on the door, and a sneak peek of a third building posted on Facebook to distract from it.

Three years

This investigation started three years ago, with a handful of people in a Facebook group who could not make the numbers add up. They were called liars, bullies and a trafficking ring. They were threatened. They kept going, and they kept receipts.

Nobody in that group ever shut a shop. They did not need to. Every closure above was carried out by somebody entirely independent — a landlord in Caerphilly, a landlord in Risca, a property company on Crane Street, a landlord on Commercial Street — and every enforcement action alongside them came from SSE, the fire service or environmental health. Each was acting on the same thing: the paperwork. The paperwork was always going to win, because the paperwork was always true.

The lease said one year. It ran out on 26 October 2025. This morning, 324 days later, a landlord in Pontypool taped two sheets of A4 to a shop window, named Carrie-Anne Ridsdale as the former tenant, offered a convicted child sex offender £40 to get out of the building, and locked the door.

The last Jayne’s Baby Bank shop front in Wales is closed.

UPDATE — 17 September 2026

Since this article was published on 15 September, Jayne’s Baby Bank has posted almost continuously. Across those posts the eviction is never mentioned once. What follows is what was actually posted, set against the notice in the window and against the documents she published herself.

The night of 15 September

Around 11pm on the night following the eviction, witnesses reported seeing Carrie-Anne Ridsdale at 6 Commercial Street, in a blue Nissan Leaf, in the company of Raymond Derek Watkins — the man the landlord had paid £40 to leave the building that same morning. She was seen on the ground at the premises. The Jayne’s Baby Bank Exposed group was alerted, and word reached her that she had been seen.

This site has also viewed CCTV footage of the premises from that night. We are not publishing it and we are not describing its contents, beyond confirming that we have seen it and that it is consistent with the account above. That is a data protection decision, not a reflection of any doubt about the footage.

At around midnight, she went live.

The livestream runs to more than 250 lines. It is about a building she had viewed that day — an “out of our budget” wild card with double doors, an attic, showers and shipping containers. It contains a detailed account of her day. It does not contain one word about the eviction, and not one word about being at the shop at 11pm.

It opens, before anything else, with an account of where she has just been:

“Oh, evening guys. I’ve been filling up another community library box that we’ve got. Yeah, there was books out of there. Not as much as the other one. The other one’s gone really well…”

“I forgot a video. Somebody was talking to me. And earlier on we parked and the guy was trying to bring out his trolley so we had to go really quick. So I couldn’t show you what I’d done.”

“So I’m just coming back from doing the books.”

Opening lines of the livestream

Nobody had asked her. Within the first eleven lines of the broadcast she has volunteered where she had been, what she had been doing there, and three separate reasons why there is no footage of it: she forgot, somebody was talking to her, and they had to leave in a hurry because a man was bringing out his trolley.

She was not short of a camera that night. The post carrying this livestream also carries a video filmed through a windscreen, on an unlit road, in the dark. The camera was working. It simply was not pointed at the one activity that would place her somewhere other than Commercial Street at 11pm.

She may well have been filling a community library box. We make no finding either way, and she is entitled to have been wherever she says she was. What we note is that she volunteered it, unprompted, in the opening seconds of a broadcast made within an hour of being seen at the premises — and that the one thing which would corroborate it is the one thing she says she does not have.

What the livestream also contains is this:

“I wasn’t there for the meeting with the council, the landlords and the fire today. They wanted to speak to them. That’s confidential between them, I suppose, isn’t it?”

“So where we’re at now is P2. I think we’re going to have to move out. Because they’re going to have to do the work in there and they, you know, they need the access.”

Livestream, approximately midnight, 15–16 September 2026

Read the tense. “I think we’re going to have to move out.” A decision still to be taken, at some point in the future, about a building she had been formally locked out of eighteen hours earlier, by a notice bearing her own name, quoting her own lease.

Note the other half of it, too. She places herself away from the meeting — “I wasn’t there” — and describes it as “confidential between them”. She then spends the following day telling her followers what the council said at it, as settled fact: that the buildings “shouldn’t have been rented in this condition”, that the landlords have been given “court orders to fix the buildings”, that samples were taken, that the heritage team has been viewing the premises. All of it reported at second hand, from a meeting she says she did not attend and cannot see the minutes of.

The post carrying that video reads in full:

“Wide card story & and a pontypool shop moan.

Still in limbo with p1/p2/p3 – waiting on council to let us know if we can move the stock from p2/p3 or are they condemning the stock.”

“In limbo” is doing a great deal of work there. There is no limbo. There is a notice, signed and dated, stating she has “no continuing contractual right to occupy, operate from, or otherwise use the premises.”

Two WhatsApp screenshots she published herself are timestamped 00:50 and 01:10.

We are not aware of any arrest or charge arising from that night, and nothing here should be read as suggesting otherwise. What witnesses saw is set out as an account, and the footage referred to above is retained but withheld. The Formal Notice reserved the landlord’s right to notify the police; whether he has done so is not known to us.

“P2 images from today”

The following day she posted photographs of collapsed ceilings, black mould and holes in a roof, with this caption:

“P2 images from today so we think the council will say the same to p2 landlord now. Waiting on the council to let us know if they are condemning the stock before we remove it. Council are saying it shouldn’t have been rented in this condition and they should have done the repair work under the health and safety act. £550 a month rent. More holes in the roof is the other videos and pigeons. We are all packed up on p1 and mostly in p3 it’s only p2 that isn’t packed.”

There are only two possibilities here, and she is welcome to pick either.

Either the images are not from that day, and the caption is false — or she was inside the building, photographing it, after being served with a notice that states in terms:

You must not enter, attempt to enter, or arrange for any other person to enter the premises without the Landlord’s prior express permission… using or obtaining keys or other means of access without authorisation… entering through or with the assistance of a third party.

Her own words, in a separate post, answer it for her:

By her own account she has been inside the premises. The notice says she must not be.

“A landlord can write any thing and place it in the window”

This is the closest she has come to acknowledging that the notice exists:

“A landlord can write any thing and place it in the window they have typed up on a word document. But the evidence is the buildings have been deemed unfit to rent due to Health and Saftey breaches which the landlords are responsible.”

Jaynesbabybank Registered – cic, 16 September 2026

The “word document” names her as Former Tenant. It quotes Clauses 1, 8, 14 and 15 of the lease she signed on 27 October 2024. It is signed and dated. And in a WhatsApp exchange she published herself, the reply from the other end reads: “What shop parts? The whole building is served with notice.”

The same post sets out a legal theory:

“we do not have to pay any rent for p1/p2/p3 or any shop/space once a Health and Safety Prohibition is in place as the shops have been deemed unfit for rent/use… Landlords may say we have not paid the rent but legally they have been told it is a criminal offence for them to charge any tenant rent once the prohibition is in place.”

She has never identified the provision that says this, and we have been unable to find one. A prohibition notice under section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 prohibits a specified activity until remedied. It does not terminate a lease, it does not extinguish rent, and it does not make charging rent a criminal offence. (We are not lawyers and this is not legal advice — but the burden of naming the statute sits with the person asserting it, and she has not named one.)

More to the point: none of it has anything to do with why she is out. The notice is not a rent claim. It does not mention rent arrears as the reason. It says the contractual term expired on 26 October 2025. That is the whole of it.

And buried in that same post is a sentence worth holding on to:

“If a landlord wanted to pursue us civilly for any non payment of rent they could but the we would state why we stopped paying due to the leaks, damp mould and ceilings and walls falling apart.”

In June 2026 the line was “we have always paid our rent.” In July it became “I haven’t got to pay any rent.” It is now “why we stopped paying”. That is an admission, and it is the third position on the same question in four months.

The email that says the opposite of what she says it says

She posted a screenshot of an email from an Environmental Health Officer, with this caption:

“We have had the go ahead to remove our stock which has not been condemned by the council. And there is the email to state both premises are unfit for purpose in current state.“

Here is the email she attached, in full:

“I do not recognise the term ‘condemed’ in reference to Health & Safety Legislation. As you are already aware Prohibition Notices under section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 have been served in regard to both premises; these will remain in place until they have been complied with.

Kind regards,”

Environmental Health Officer, as published by Jayne’s Baby Bank

The email does not say the premises are “unfit for purpose”. It does not give any “go ahead to remove stock”. It is an officer correcting her on a word she used, and confirming that prohibition notices remain in force until complied with. She published the document that contradicts her own caption, directly underneath it.

Facebook’s own label

One post carries a label that Jayne’s Baby Bank did not write. Beneath the page name, where the timestamp sits, Facebook has applied its own tag: “AI content”.

We draw no conclusion from that label beyond the fact of it. Meta applies it where its systems detect that media in a post has been generated or altered by AI, and it is not infallible. We note it, we have not altered the screenshot, and readers can weigh it as they see fit.

What is worth weighing is the post it is attached to. The caption reads:

“Just debunking the fly tipping allegations from the haters. We were allowed to put rubbish out but we didn’t have the right containers. 1 of our bags had Monmouth on too. Not sure how that turned up. Shall we run a raffle on who they are going to report me this week?? CADW and the Bishop are still hiding from them.”

The email attached as the debunk, from a torfaen.gov.uk address and dated 14 September 2026 at 15:33, reads:

That is not a debunk. A prosecution file does not exist unless a council has opened one. She published, as proof that the allegations were false, a document confirming she was the subject of a live prosecution file that will be closed on condition she obtains the correct bins.

The WhatsApp screenshots

Several of the posts in this period carry screenshots of a WhatsApp thread. The number at the top of that thread is consistent with the collection contact printed on the Formal Notice itself — the landlord’s representative.

In one, she writes to him: “I’m gutted for you. Have they ordered you a time scale to do the work?” — while telling her own followers that the landlords are the villains of the story and thanking “the haters” for the stress caused to the owners.

One screenshot requires an explanation from her. It shows a message she sent at 01:10, and immediately beneath it a reply quoting a message attributed to “You”. The two texts are not the same.

There are innocent explanations. She may have sent two separate messages a few seconds apart, and the reply may quote the second. A message edited within WhatsApp’s fifteen-minute window will also show new text in the bubble while the quote retains the original — although WhatsApp marks edited messages, and no such marker is visible here.

We are not asserting that these screenshots were fabricated, and we do not have the uncropped thread. What we will say is this: the version in the quote block is spelled correctly, is longer, and is more fluently phrased than the version she is shown sending — and “saftey” is her consistent spelling, appearing three times in a single post the same day. The full, uncropped conversation would resolve it in a minute. We have asked for it.

Whichever way that falls, the reply underneath is not in dispute, because she published it: “The whole building is served with notice.”

“We will be back over the weekend”

Two posts from the evening of 16 September, both with comments restricted:

“We will be back over the weekend or next week so don’t leave any donations outside the shops please. Still waiting on council update.”

“We are waiting for a pad delivery at Pontypool shops can you keep you eyes open for us please as we don’t want them to get wet”

There are no shops. There is one unit in Newbridge under a fire service prohibition that the public are not permitted to enter, and there are two locked buildings in Pontypool she is not permitted to enter either. “We will be back over the weekend” describes a return to premises that are not hers, and the pad delivery is being sent to a door that will not open — which is presumably why it might “get wet”, and why members of the public are being asked to stand watch over it.

Donations are still being solicited. Deliveries are still being arranged. Both are pointed at buildings that have been taken back.

Where this leaves it

In forty-eight hours she has published: a claim that the landlord’s notice is just a word document; a legal theory she cannot source; photographs captioned “from today” of a building she is barred from; an email presented as saying the opposite of what it says; a fly-tipping “debunk” that confirms a prosecution file; a WhatsApp thread with the landlord’s representative in which she is sympathetic to him; and a request that the public watch for a delivery to a shop she cannot enter.

What she has not published, once, in any post, is the word eviction — or the date 26 October 2025.

That date has not moved. It is still the reason.

Note on this update

All Facebook posts quoted in this update were published publicly by the page “Jaynesbabybank Registered – cic” between 15 and 16 September 2026 and are reproduced as screenshots, unaltered. Spelling and grammar are as posted. The livestream is quoted from a transcript of the video as broadcast. The events of the night of 15 September are set out on the basis of witness accounts and of CCTV footage which this site has viewed, retains, and has chosen not to publish or describe for data protection reasons; we are not aware of any arrest or charge, and nothing in this update should be read as suggesting that any criminal finding has been made against anyone. The “AI content” label reproduced above was applied by Facebook, not by this site.

UPDATE — 20 September 2026: “Evacuated, not evicted”

Five days after the landlord took possession of 6 Commercial Street, this appeared on the Jayne’s Baby Bank page:

“Just for clarity we have been evacuated from both Pontypool shops due to landlords breach of Health and Safety. NOT EVICTED. There is a massive difference. Landlords can put anything up in windows in a word document that they have printed off.”

“I am not prepared to pay rent for premises in these conditions either which I think is my right as a tenant to dispute it.”

“Legally I do not have to pay any rent because the shops are in an unfit state to rent to anyone.”

“Landlords can not legally dispose of any assets inside the shop they have to legally be put into storage at the landlords costs because we did not cause this problem and because we are a Trademarked Registered CIC.”

Jaynesbabybank Registered – cic, 20 September 2026

Attached to that post was a photograph of an official notice. It is worth looking at closely, because it is not one document. It is two.

The notice, and the version of it that was published

The upper part of the image is a notice this site has seen before and reported on in August. It is headed PROHIBITION NOTICE, it is issued under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and it relates to 5b Crane Street, Pontypool, NP4 6LY. That is P1. It is a different building, in a different street, with a different postcode.

Laid over the lower half of that image is a second, retyped document. It carries the same statutory heading, the same layout and very nearly the same words. But it is headed EVACUATION NOTICE, and it relates to 6 Commercial Street.

Set the two texts against each other and the retyped version differs in nine places. Every one of them matters.

Read down the right-hand column. The building changes. The postcode disappears. And every single alteration to the wording runs in the same direction: a serious risk becomes a risk; harm that has caused and will continue becomes harm that has the potential to; acute and chronic illness becomes merely acute.

Then there is the heading.

The Act provides for two enforcement notices. Section 21 provides for an improvement notice. Section 22 provides for a prohibition notice. Sections 23 and 24 deal with how those two notices work and how they are appealed. That is the whole list.

The retyped version keeps the citation — “SECTIONS 22, 23 AND 24” — at the top of a document it then calls something that does not exist in those sections, or anywhere else in the Act. It also demotes the instrument said to be attached from a Prohibition Notice to a Procedure, which is not a statutory instrument of any kind either.

We make no finding about who produced that document or how. What we can record is what was published, and what the notice actually says.

Why the word matters

“Evacuated, not evicted. There is a massive difference.”

There is, and it is worth being precise about it. An evacuation is something a safety regulator requires of a building. An eviction is something a landlord does to a tenant. They are separate events, brought by separate people, for separate reasons — and they are not mutually exclusive. Both can happen to the same premises. Neither cancels the other.

What ended the tenancy at 6 Commercial Street was neither a prohibition notice nor an evacuation. It was the calendar. The lease ran for one year from 27 October 2024 and expired on 26 October 2025, and the parties had contracted out of sections 24 to 28 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, so no right to remain survived it. The Formal Notice taped to the window on 15 September 2026 is a notice of expired commercial tenancy. It does not mention health and safety, because health and safety is not why it was issued.

So the claim resolves to this: a document renaming a Crane Street prohibition notice as a Commercial Street “evacuation notice” is being used to recharacterise the loss of a building that had been held without a lease for 324 days.

The rest of the post

Three further claims are made, and the lease answers all three. We published the full lease for 6 Commercial Street on 18 September.

• “I am not prepared to pay rent for premises in these conditions.” That is a decision, not a defence, and it is now the seventh different reason given for non-payment since January. Under clause 5(a) the rent was payable monthly in advance on the 27th by standing order. Disputing a charge and simply not paying it are not the same thing.
• “Legally I do not have to pay any rent because the shops are in an unfit state to rent to anyone.” There is no such rule, and her own lease says the opposite. Clause 10 provides that if the Property becomes “unfit for occupation and use” the lease terminates immediately. If the premises were unfit, there was no tenancy to occupy. If they were not, the rent fell due.
• “Landlords can not legally dispose of any assets… because we are a Trademarked Registered CIC.” A trademark is a right in a name. A community interest company is a type of limited company. Neither confers any right over goods left in somebody else’s building, and neither displaces clause 8(b), which required the Tenant at the end of the Term to “vacate the Property and remove all of the Tenant’s items from the Property”. The company was not incorporated until 7 November 2025 — twelve days after this lease had already expired.

As for landlords being able to “put anything up in windows in a word document”: the notice in that window cited Clauses 1, 8, 14 and 15 of a deed signed by hand, in front of a named witness, on 27 October 2024.

Note on this update

The Prohibition Notice relating to 5b Crane Street, Pontypool, NP4 6LY has been seen by this site and was reported in our coverage of the Crane Street closure in August 2026. The image reproduced above is taken from the post published by Jayne’s Baby Bank on 20 September 2026; the left-hand panel is the notice as served, and the right-hand panel is the retyped document that appears in that same post. Both texts are transcribed directly from the images, and the differences listed are the complete set we can identify between them.

We do not know who produced the retyped document, when, or by what means, and we make no allegation about any individual in relation to it. We record only that it was published, that it names premises other than those named on the notice as served, and that it describes itself as a class of notice which does not exist under the Act it cites. Any explanation offered will be published in full and unedited.

Statements about the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 are a description of the statute’s plain provisions and are offered as comment, not as legal advice or a legal finding.

Sources and related reporting

• “Hoorah”: Public Reacts After JBB Caerphilly Unit Allegedly Reclaimed by Landlord — 7 May 2026
• New CCJ Reveals Carrie-Anne Ridsdale Identity Previously Denied — 15 May 2026
• Repossession Notice Appears at Former Jayne’s Baby Bank Risca Premises — 8 June 2026
• Lights Out on Commercial Street: The JBB Warrant Explained — 19 June 2026
• Torts Notice? We Took Notice — 2 July 2026
• 5 Crane Street: The End of the Road for Jayne’s Baby Bank — 16 August 2026
• Convicted Child Sex Offender Working and Living at Jayne’s Baby Bank — 13 September 2026
• The Sherlock Dossier — #EXPOSED

Note on this report

The Formal Notice quoted above was photographed in the window of 6 Commercial Street, Pontypool on 15 September 2026 and is reproduced here in part. Quotations from it are transcribed from those photographs. The account of events in the early hours of 15 September, including the £40 offered for vacant possession, is the landlord’s account as relayed to this site. Conviction details for Raymond Derek Watkins are drawn from the March 2013 Cardiff Crown Court proceedings as reported at the time and set out in our 13 September report. The telephone number and email address printed on the public notice have been redacted.

Factual statements are supported by evidence where available, and opinions are identified as such. Nothing on this site should be interpreted as a legal finding or legal advice. Carrie-Anne Ridsdale, also known publicly as Jayne Price, has a standing right of reply. Any response received will be published in full and unedited.

… Sherlock!