Pre-Law Exposed Award-Winning Solicitors Lancaster But No Name, No SRA Number, No Signature
Published: 1 September 2026
Introduction
This is a factual account of correspondence I received from a firm calling itself PreLaw — “Award-Winning Solicitors.” Everything stated here is verifiable. I have attached photographic evidence of: their own website disclaimer explicitly stating they are NOT regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA); the top of the letter they sent me containing NO solicitor’s name, NO SRA registration number, and NO identifying details whatsoever; and the bottom of the letter containing NO readable signature, only an illegible scribble and the word
PreLaw.Lancaster H2: FINAL GAZETTE NOTICE — DISSOLVED 4 AUGUST 2026. LETTER SENT 25 AUGUST 2026.
Public records at Companies House and The Gazette confirm that Pre-Law Limited (or Pre-Law LLP) was officially dissolved by Final Gazette Notice dated 4 August 2026 — struck off the register via voluntary strike-off.
Twenty-one days later, on 25 August 2026, I received a threatening legal letter on Pre-Law letterhead.Under UK law, once a company or LLP is dissolved by Final Gazette Notice, it CEASES TO EXIST as a legal entity. It has NO authority to conduct ANY business — issue invoices, sign documents, enter agreements, OR SEND LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE.
Yet they sent a letter anyway. From a business that legally did not exist.
Their filed accounts reveal total assets of just £276 — barely enough to cover a month’s rent, let alone operate a law firm. The named members are Jake Draycott (SRA No. 7008074) and Anderson Birmingham Gray. Both are legally responsible. Both let the firm dissolve. Both allowed legal correspondence to be issued from a dissolved entity.No name. No SRA number. No valid signature. And now — officially — NO COMPANY.This is not a mistake. This is correspondence issued by a dissolved entity. All dates, accounts, and Gazette notices are public record. Anyone can verify them at Companies House and The Gazette. The facts speak for themselves.GAVIN JENNINGS DENIED EVERYTHING — BUT THE LETTER TELLS THE TRUTH
After this letter was sent, Gavin Jennings publicly claimed that Chek Institute had absolutely no connection to Pre-Law or Jake Draycott. He threw his own lawyer under the bus and washed his hands of the entire matter. Yet the letter itself clearly references Chek Europe — the operating company behind Chek Institute. If there was no connection, why was the letter sent on their behalf? Why did he deny it only AFTER it became public? One letter. Two different stories. And the public records prove exactly what happened.
Look at this you see they say no SRA
Contradiction One: “We are solicitors” vs. “We are NOT SRA regulated”
Their letterhead and their representative on the phone both claimed: “We are solicitors.” But their OWN WEBSITE clearly states: “PreLaw is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.” This is legally impossible in the United Kingdom. If you are a solicitor — you ARE regulated by the SRA. If you are NOT SRA regulated — you are NOT a solicitor. So why would they claim to be solicitors on their letterhead while their own website admits they are NOT regulated? And if they now claim Jake Draycott — SRA No. 7008074 — is the solicitor who sent the letter… WHY does their website STILL say they are NOT regulated? If they genuinely work with an SRA-regulated solicitor — that page would have been updated. It has not. That is not an oversight. That is a deliberate admission standing in direct conflict with everything they have told me.
no name of lawyer and no SAR NUMBER ?
Contradiction Two: The letter had NO name, NO number, NO signature
Look at the letter itself — photographed exactly as I received it: NO solicitor’s name anywhere; NO SRA registration number anywhere; NO actual signature — only an illegible scribble that cannot be read, verified, or identified; only the word “PreLaw” with no individual accepting responsibility. If Jake Draycott genuinely reviewed, authorised, and signed this letter — WHY WAS HIS NAME DELIBERATELY OMITTED? WHY WAS HIS SRA NUMBER DELIBERATELY OMITTED? WHY WAS THERE NO READABLE SIGNATURE? What kind of qualified solicitor sends legal correspondence and deliberately removes EVERYTHING that would let the recipient verify who sent it or hold them accountable?
Contradiction Three: The name only appeared AFTER being caught
I replied to their letter the SAME DAY I received it — Tuesday 25 August at 17:45. They admitted they NEVER EVEN READ MY REPLY. For THREE FULL WORKING DAYS — silence. Only AFTER I telephoned, challenged them, and threatened a formal complaint to the SRA, Action Fraud, and the Police — did they suddenly reply: “Oh, it was Jake Draycott, SRA No. 7008074.” He was there all along. They just HID him until they had NO CHOICE but to produce him.
Contradiction Four: The demands were not written by any solicitor
EVERY demand in that letter — word-for-word — matches demands previously sent to me by Tom Sumner on behalf of Gavin Jennings / the C.H.E.K Institute. A qualified, independent solicitor does not copy and paste someone else’s threats word-for-word. They form their own professional judgment. They write in their own language. This letter was NOT written by Jake Draycott. It was written by Gavin Jennings — sent through Tom Sumner — and then put on PreLaw letterhead with EVERY identifying detail removed.
Contradiction Five: Threatening money — then denying it
Their letter states they reserve the right to seek “interim relief” — legal terminology meaning immediate court orders and interim payments of money. But on the phone, their representative told me: “We are not demanding money.” They threatened financial claims in writing — then denied it verbally.
The Question Nobody Can Answer
If Jake Draycott genuinely reviewed, authorised, and signed that letter — with his own SRA number — then: WHY WAS HIS NAME HIDDEN? WHY WAS HIS NUMBER HIDDEN? WHY WAS HIS SIGNATURE HIDDEN? WHY DOES THEIR WEBSITE STILL SAY THEY ARE NOT SRA REGULATED? WHY COPY SOMEONE ELSE’S THREATS WORD-FOR-WORD? There is only one logical answer: He NEVER saw it. He NEVER approved it. They used his name as a shield — hoping I would be scared and wouldn’t check.
NO REAL SIGNATURE FROM THE Lawyer
