Fanica Roman v Ofsted [2026] UKFTT 1001 (HESC)
REPRESENTATION
[1]This has been a remote hearing which was not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was remote via Video. A face to face hearing was not held as it was not practical and nobody requested it. All issues could be determined in a remote hearing. Due to the nature of the hearing (see below) we considered that this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. There was one very brief disconnection, but this was immediately rectified and did not impact the hearing.ISSUES IN THE CASE
[2]This is an appeal brought by Mr Fanica Roman. He was registered with Ofsted on the voluntary part of the Childcare register in February 2025. An inspection took place on 4 September 2025 following information from the Student Loans company that Mr Roman had received £55,000 from them in connection with working as a “nanny”. At this point Ofsted had received no information suggesting that Mr Roman was working with any families. He was inspected on 4 September 2025. On 5 September he provided details of families he was working with. On 21 October Ofsted issued a Notice of Intention to cancel registration. Notice of decision to cancel was issued on 7 November. This appeal was lodged on 8 November 2025.[3]What is alleged by Ofsted is that firstly Mr Roman was in breach of his obligations to notify Ofsted regarding the details of the families he was working with and secondly that he was dishonest about this in his dealings with Ofsted including during the inspection claiming amongst other things that he was not working at the time.THE HEARING
[4]This hearing was listed following a telephone management hearing with Judge Khan on 7 January 2026 which Mr Roman attended. Comprehensive directions were made, including provision of a bundle. We were some way into the hearing, including having heard the evidence of both Ofsted inspectors, when following a question from the Tribunal it transpired that the appellant did not have a copy of the bundle. This was perplexing as he had complied with his obligations under various directions. He indicated that he was confused as English was not his first language although we established that he does clearly have full comprehension linguistically having a degree in Business studies from Suffolk University. Nonetheless in the interests of fairness, we adjourned the case to the following day to enable him to consider the bundle. We also required both witnesses to attend again for any cross examination in the light of his consideration of the bundle.THE EVIDENCE
[5]We had before us a bundle running to 605 pages and a supplemental bundle running to 13 pages. We had statements from Ms Twynham and Ms Lapworth who gave oral evidence and a statement from Mr Paul Traynor from the student loan company which was agreed. Mr Roman provided two statements and documentation from the families he was engaged with. He also gave evidence before us.THE LAW
[6]The relevant legislation is the Childcare Act 2006 Under s.68(2) of the Childcare Act 2006 the Chief Inspector may cancel the registration of a person in the early year register or the general childcare register if it appears to him that the prescribed requirements for registration which apply in relation to the person’s registration under that Chapter have ceased, or will cease, to be satisfied, and/or if the individual has failed to comply with a requirement imposed by regulations. In Mr Romans case registration is voluntary as he was working in other people’s homes as a “nanny”. The relevant regulations governing ongoing registration on the voluntary register are set out in The Childcare (General Childcare Requirements) Regulations 2008 A registered person may appeal to the Tribunal against the cancellation of the person’s registration under s.74(1) of the Act. On an appeal the Tribunal must either confirm the taking of the step, the making of the other determination or the making of the order, or direct that it shall not have, or shall cease to have, effect (s.74(4) of the Act) The burden of proof on appeal lies with Ofsted, who must establish the facts upon which it relies to support cancellation and who must demonstrate that the decision to cancel the Appellant’s registration is proportionate and necessary. The standard of proof to be applied is the “balance of probabilities”. The Tribunal makes its decision based on all the evidence available to it at the date of the hearing and is not restricted to the matters available to Ofsted when the cancellation decision was taken.ANALYSIS
[7]The issue in this case is whether Mr Roman is a suitable person to be registered by virtue of his honesty and integrity. The purpose of registration is to ensure that children (and their families) are protected in their own homes by making sure that persons entering that home and having care of children are suitable to do this by virtues of their knowledge of expectations and their honesty and integrity of character. Honesty and integrity are fundamental characteristics to ensure that children are safeguarded. It is Ofsted’s case that Mr Roman has demonstrated in his dealings with them that he is both untruthful and lacking in integrity and cannot therefore be trusted to act in an open and honest manner.[8]It is accepted by Mr Roman that he began to engage with families from the point of registration. He registered with the student loan company in respect of 10 families and between March and July 2025 had received £55,000 from the SLC. He did not provide any details to Ofsted of these families. When Ofsted received this information from SLC they contacted Mr Roman to seek details. By E mail dated 14 August Mr Roman stated when asked to provide documentation; “Yes no problem. I will send now the documents but I don’t start to work yet” An inspection took place on 4 September 2025 by Ms Twynham. She took contemporaneous notes. Despite having the opportunity to challenge Ms Twynham on her evidence Mr Roman did not question her directly as to the integrity of those notes. She recorded the following; “FR - Registered 20 Feb 2025, not cared for any families since registration, not currently caring for any families. I explained at registration as soon as I start caring I will inform ofsted. No families in mind at the moment due to current family situation. I am director at a company and taking time off, my head is not clear. Company is for construction, boring job in the office. Wanted to become a nanny as want to open business in future. Worked with chn in school when I was 21/22. Try as nanny first and then build up.”[9]She asked him about his receipt of money from the SLC the conversation went as follows; “ TT How do you intend to get paid? Do you receive funding? FR says I think parent can get free child grant from gov and I will refer them as well. TT Familiar with SLC, something you use? FR – not really Do you have an account? FR – I have been a student and used it. Done university business management finished last year, did not use childcare grant, offered parent learning grant. Don’t have an account as a nanny. TT Received info from SLC and there are children that have not been referenced. Ask why provider was not honest? (check days claimed for chn against how many days the provider is saying they care/d for them?) FR no I don’t tried to set up but not finished. If I started I will inform ofsted. TT why do you think we have info? FR probably started my account, set up but not finished. In validation. TT shares claimed for 10 families since registration? FR no I don’t. been away from a couple June, July, August 2025. TT asked if anyone else has access to SLC? FR left laptop in office. When away need to check. I need to find out SLC TT shared below info re 10 families since registration and how much claimed TT Familiar with SLC, something you use? FR – not really Do you have an account? TT why do you think we have info? TT shares claimed for 10 families since registration? TT asked if anyone else has access to SLC?TT shared below info re 10 families since registration and how much claimed
[10]In his Grounds of Appeal dated 7 November 2025 Mr Roman states; “Ofsted’s decision relies on several incorrect or misinterpreted facts. It was concluded that I was actively working and claiming childcare funding from 20 February 2025, but this was based on data from the Student Loans Company (SLC) which does not accurately reflect my working status at that time. I confirmed during my inspection that I understood the reporting requirements and had not yet started providing regular childcare services due to family circumstances. My communication with Ofsted after the inspection was a prompt correction, not a reaction to enforcement”(our emphasis).[11]In his formal written responses to the allegations contained in the Notice of cancellation Mr Roman states as follows; “The Appellant denies that statements made during the inspection were dishonest. At that time, childcare arrangements were limited and informal, and the Appellant did not consider himself to be fully operational as a home childcarer. The subsequent notification to Ofsted demonstrates transparency and cooperation rather than concealment.”[12]There is also confusion regarding whether or not Mr Roman took an extended holiday during the period he was claiming money in respect of his involvement with the families he was engaged with. In an E mail dated 4 August he states; “I am in (sic) holiday now I will bee back in England end of month” And in an E mail dated 14 August states; “I left a message to another inspector because I am in holiday to end of September” In the inspection interview he stated; “TT shares claimed for 10 families since registration? FR no I don’t. been away from a couple June, July, August 2025” FR no I don’t. been away from a couple June, July, August 2025”[13]Mr Roman gave evidence. His case simply put is that his failure to provide the information required was an administrative error on his part and did not impugn his honesty. He could not explain the E mail correspondence indicating that he had not commenced work nor clarify the comments made in documents provided by him. He blamed communication difficulties and linguistic misunderstandings. He told us the confusion regarding the holiday was that he sent an email saying he was on holiday until the end of the month because he intended to stay with his relative (father or grandfather, he confusingly mentioned both) until they died. Unfortunately. they died after only a couple of days, so he returned to England however he had already sent an email to say he was away. He indicated that the notes taken by Ms Twynham were inaccurate but could not explain why this was so.[14]We found Ms Twynham to be an honest witness. There was no reason to doubt that her notes of the meeting were as accurate as they could be. They were contemporaneous. She had never met Mr Roman before and there was no reason for her to effectively concoct notes. In any event her notes are corroborated by documentation produced by Mr Roman himself. He clearly states as set out above in E mails and in documentation prepared for this tribunal that he had not started working or was only working on a limited and informal way. This is patently not the case as the detailed contracts provided by Mr Roman show a very formal and complex operation was in place. To receive £55,000 in 4 months from the SLC shows the detailed formality of arrangements.[15]We found Mr Roman to be a wholly unsatisfactory witness. He would not answer questions directly and constantly went off on a tangent about how unfairly treated he had been in not being allowed to continue to claim monies from the SLC (registration being a requirement). He did not address any of the issues in the case and became combative and aggressive and accused Ofsted of acting in a racist manner because he came from Rumania.[16]There is ample evidence to show that Mr Roman has consistently misled Ofsted about his activities. He did not provide details of the families he was working with and deliberately misrepresented the extent of his activities. He has not shown any insight into his failings and before us continued to present a case that was patently untrue based even upon his own statements. We have no hesitation in accepting the view of Ofsted that his lack of integrity and honesty make him totally unsuitable for registration. In cancelling his registration Ofsted have acted reasonably and proportionately. DECISION To dismiss the appeal Judge Ian Robertson First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) Date issued 03 July 2026