A nursery can have a 'good' rating and be completely failing
In two of England's largest nursery chains, the warnings came from those closest to the children — staff who saw what cameras missed, parents who sensed something wrong — and were turned away. The arrests of Nathan Bennett and Vincent Chan, both sentenced to lengthy prison terms for abusing toddlers in their care, have exposed not merely individual failures but a systemic reluctance to act on concern before harm becomes undeniable. That the nurseries involved held 'good' Ofsted ratings throughout much of this period invites a deeper question: what does it mean to be safe, and who decides?
- Staff at two major nursery chains raised repeated alarms about abusers' behaviour months before arrests, only to be dismissed or ignored by management.
- Children as young as two and three were sexually abused over extended periods while institutional inertia shielded perpetrators from scrutiny.
- Legal obligations to report concerns to safeguarding authorities were not met, leaving regulators and families in the dark about escalating risks.
- Ofsted's 'good' ratings — held by both nurseries during the abuse — are now under fire as misleading indicators that mask complaint histories and welfare violations.
- Post-arrest regulatory notices surged to seven times the national average at Partou, revealing failures that routine inspections had not surfaced.
- Government and Ofsted have announced reforms, but critics warn that without structural investment and genuine whistleblower protection, the same silence will prevail.
Bessie Martin watched Nathan Bennett keep toddlers on his lap, out of camera view, and told her managers at Partou's Bristol nursery what she was seeing. They told her she was imagining it. She complained for months. Only after a formal whistleblowing report was Bennett suspended — and two weeks after his return, CCTV captured him abusing a child. He was arrested the next day and later sentenced to 30 years for abusing five boys aged two and three.
Martin was not alone. Parents had also raised concerns about Bennett's behaviour — his physical closeness, his habit of working alone with children in the early mornings. Some of those concerns were never passed to the Local Authority Designated Officer or to Ofsted, as the law required. One mother described her son telling her Bennett had touched him under his clothes. Limited CCTV coverage means some families will never know whether their children were among the victims.
A BBC investigation found that Partou nurseries had already been receiving Ofsted Welfare Requirements Notices at twice the national average in the four years before March 2025. In the year after Bennett's arrest, that rate rose to more than seven times the average. The pattern was mirrored at Bright Horizons, where Vincent Chan abused children over seven years at a West Hampstead nursery, filming his crimes on nursery iPads. Sentenced to 18 years, Chan had been described by a former colleague as cold and unsuited to working with children — yet no formal complaint was ever made. Forty-six families are now pursuing legal action against Bright Horizons, alleging the company dismissed concerns about Chan's conduct.
What deepens the alarm is that both nurseries held 'good' Ofsted ratings throughout much of this period. Bright Horizons West Hampstead received another 'good' rating after Chan's arrest but before his crimes were publicly known. According to education researcher Dr. Tammy Campbell, ratings can be dangerously misleading — a nursery can accumulate complaints and welfare notices while its performance grade remains unchanged. Ninety-eight percent of England's nurseries are currently rated 'good' or 'outstanding'.
Ofsted says it has increased inspection activity at both chains and is working with government on a more rigorous approach. New recruitment checks, whistleblowing procedures, and training standards have been introduced. Both Partou and Bright Horizons have commissioned independent safeguarding reviews and say they are expanding training and oversight. But the question that lingers is not procedural — it is human: how did so many warnings, from so many people, go unanswered for so long?
Bessie Martin watched Nathan Bennett hold children on his lap, keeping them out of sight of the cameras. When she told her managers at Partou King Street Nursery in Bristol what she was seeing—a man who wouldn't let toddlers move, who kept them seated against their will—they dismissed her. She was imagining things, they said. She kept complaining for months. Nothing changed. It wasn't until she filed a formal whistleblowing report that Bennett was suspended. Two weeks after he returned to work, CCTV footage showed him with his hands down a boy's trousers. He was arrested the next day. In February, he was sentenced to 30 years in prison for sexually abusing five boys aged two and three.
Martin was not alone in raising the alarm. Parents had also reported Bennett's behaviour—describing him as overly physical, noting how he worked alone in the mornings when children first arrived. Some of these concerns were never passed to the Local Authority Designated Officer or to Ofsted, even though the law required it. One mother, speaking publicly for the first time, described her son telling her that Bennett had tickled him inappropriately under his clothes. She remembers seeing her son's face at the window, sometimes crying, with Bennett beside him waving. Limited CCTV coverage means some families will never know whether their children were abused.
Partou King Street closed last December, but Partou operates more than 100 nurseries across England. A BBC investigation found that in the four years leading up to March 2025, Partou nurseries received Welfare Requirements Notices from Ofsted—official notices to improve safeguarding, safety, or welfare—at twice the rate of the average English nursery. In the 12 months after Bennett's arrest, that rate jumped to more than seven times the national average. These notices cover failures to report abuse allegations, unsafe premises, poor record-keeping, and inadequate staff vetting.
The pattern repeated at another major chain. Bright Horizons, which runs 270 UK nurseries, saw a similar spike in regulatory notices after the arrest of Vincent Chan, a paedophile who worked at their West Hampstead location. Chan was sentenced to 18 years in prison in February for abusing children over seven years, using nursery iPads to film his crimes. A former staff member at that nursery said Chan was cold and emotionless, and she believed he should never have worked with children—but she did not formally complain. Bright Horizons is now facing legal action from 46 families who say the company dismissed their concerns about Chan's general behaviour, including shouting at children and encouraging aggression.
What makes this pattern more alarming is what the ratings don't show. Both Partou King Street and Bright Horizons West Hampstead held "good" Ofsted ratings before the arrests. Bright Horizons even received another "good" rating after Chan's arrest but before his crimes were revealed. According to Dr. Tammy Campbell of the Education Policy Institute, Ofsted ratings can be dangerously misleading because they may not reflect the number of complaints, concerns, or welfare notices a nursery has accumulated. A setting can hold a "good" rating and be completely failing. Ninety-eight percent of England's nurseries are rated "good" or "outstanding," and even when concerns are raised between routine inspections, performance ratings are usually kept.
Ofsted has told the BBC it increased its inspection work at both chains after the cases emerged. The regulator says it will work with government to strengthen its response to concerns in nurseries, describing its new approach as much more rigorous. The government has implemented tougher recruitment checks, clearer whistleblowing procedures, and new training standards. Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Early Years Alliance, acknowledged that the vast majority of nurseries are safe but said recent months had seen a disproportionate number of concerns. He called for government investment to reduce pressure on staff and improve training.
Partou told the BBC that safeguarding is its highest priority and that it has provided affected families with the fullest possible support. An independent safeguarding review identified failures by individuals at the Bristol nursery, and some no longer work for the company. Bright Horizons said it welcomed scrutiny and has expanded training, engaged an independent safeguarding organisation to review practices, and is piloting the use of cameras. Both companies argued their data must be interpreted carefully, as different operators may apply varying standards. But the core question remains: how did staff warnings go unheeded for months? How did children remain in the care of men later convicted of abuse? And how did regulatory ratings fail to signal danger?
Notable Quotes
I would see a child try to wriggle away or stand up and walk off, but he'd say, 'sit here and we're going to read a book'— Bessie Martin, former Partou employee, describing Nathan Bennett's behaviour
It's possible for a setting to have an Ofsted rating of 'good' and to be completely failing— Dr. Tammy Campbell, Education Policy Institute
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Bessie Martin's complaints take so long to trigger action?
Because there was no mechanism forcing anyone to listen. She complained informally for months, and managers simply told her she was wrong. It wasn't until she filed a formal whistleblowing report that anything happened—and even then, Bennett was allowed back after two weeks.
So the system only works if you escalate it formally?
Worse than that. Even when parents reported concerns directly to the nursery, those concerns weren't passed on to the authorities who needed to know. The law required it. They didn't do it.
What does a Welfare Requirements Notice actually mean?
It's an official warning that something is seriously wrong—abuse wasn't reported, the building isn't safe, staff weren't properly vetted. After Bennett's arrest, Partou nurseries started getting them at seven times the normal rate. That's not a coincidence.
But both nurseries had "good" Ofsted ratings before the arrests. How is that possible?
Because Ofsted ratings don't measure complaints or concerns. They measure a snapshot in time. A nursery can have dozens of red flags and still be rated "good." The rating doesn't change unless there's a full inspection, which happens every four years.
So parents are looking at a "good" rating and thinking their child is safe, when that rating might be years old?
Exactly. And by the time the next inspection happens, a predator could have abused dozens of children. The rating system doesn't protect anyone—it just reassures parents.
What would actually stop this from happening again?
You'd need staff to feel safe reporting concerns without being dismissed. You'd need those concerns to go immediately to authorities, not to managers who might ignore them. And you'd need inspections that happen when red flags appear, not on a four-year schedule.