Daffodils Nursery Limited v OFSTED [2026] UKFTT 1115 (HESC)

First-tier Tribunal Care StandardsThe Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care) Rules 20082025-01681.EYNeutral Citation Number: [2026] UKFTT 01115 (HESC)Hearing Heard on 6, 7 and 8 July 2026 at Birmingham Civil Justice CentrePanel deliberations via CVP on 10 July 2026
Before
Miss S Goodrich (Judge)Mrs S Billington (Specialist Member)Ms M Harris (Specialist Member)B E T W E E N
Between
DAFFODILS NURSERY LIMITEDAppellantOFSTEDRespondentDECISION AND REASONSRepresentation.The Appellant: Mr Alex Temple, counsel, instructed by Aman Solicitors.The Respondent: Ms Gayatri Sarathy, counsel, instructed by Ofsted Legal Services.The AppealDate 2026-08-04
[1]This is an appeal against the decision made on 1 October 2025 to cancel the Appellant’s registration as a provider of childcare on non-domestic premises on the Early Years Register and both parts of the General Childcare Register (the “Decision”). The decision was made pursuant to Section 68 of the Childcare Act 2006. (“the Act”). The right of appeal lies under section 74 of the Act.

The Parties

[2]The Appellant is a limited company, of which Mr Ahmed is the sole Director. The company has been registered with Ofsted as a provider of childcare on non-domestic premises since 2014. The premises involved as at the date of decision were Daffodils Nursery in Smethwick, Stepping Stones Nursery in Halesowen, and Tulip Day Nursery inBromwich. Mr Ahmed is the Nominated Individual (NI) under the Ofsted registration.[3]The Respondent is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) and is the regulatory authority for childminding and childcare providers. Once a provider has been registered, Ofsted’s role is to establish whether the person or entity registered continues to meet the requirements for registration, underthe Regulations made pursuant to the Act, and remains suitable for registration.

Restricted Reporting Order

[4]The Tribunal made a restricted reporting order under Rule 14(1) (a) and (b) of the 2008 Rules, prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any documents or matters likely to lead members of the public to identify children so as to protect their best interests. Consistent with this, the names of children are identified by first and/or second initial only, and we will necessarily anonymise the name of any parent by reference to the initial of the first name.

The Chronology

[5]This broad history of registration and the chronology of events leading to the decision under appeal includes the following: a) The Appellant has been registered with Ofsted as a provider of childcare on non-domestic premises since 16 June 2014 when the Appellant registered with one setting, Daffodils Nursery. b) At first inspection on 9 June 2015 Daffodils Nursery was rated as inadequate. However, in December 2015, and again in April 2019, it was rated as “Good”. c) Stepping Stone Nursery and Tulip Day Nursery were added to the Appellant’s registration in 2021. d) Subsequent inspections of the three settings rated each setting as “Good”: Daffodils Nursery on 16 March 2023, Stepping Stone Nursery on 1 February 2023, and Tulip Day Nursery on 18 April 2023. e) On 24 November 2024, Ofsted received safeguarding concerns regarding the manager at Stepping Stone Nursery. These included that the manager had vaped in the presence of children; had force-fed children and shouted at them; had made inappropriate use of mobile phones; and that incorrect ratios were being maintained. f) On 9 January 2025, Ms Wilson, an Early Years Regulatory Inspector (EYRI) conducted a telephone regulatory call with Mr Ahmed to explore those concerns. g) On 29 April 2025 Ofsted received information from an instigator/whistleblower who provided CCTV video footage of an incident involving the alleged assault of a child, said to have taken place on 18 October 2024. Ofsted made a referral to the LADO (local authority designated officer). h) On 30 April 2025 the Respondent made the decision under section 69 of the Act to suspend all three settings for a period of six weeks whilst investigations were undertaken. i) On 8 May 2025 the first Position of Trust (“PoT”) meeting was held by Mrs Mullings, the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).Police confirmed that U had been arrested (on 3 May 2025 on suspicion of child cruelty). j) On 20 May 2025 Mr Norman, Early Years Senior Officer, and Ms Heath, EYRI, conducted visits at all three settings. It was then arranged with Mr Ahmed that staff from all three settings would be interviewed and a date was agreed. k) On 26 May 2025 Ofsted received information from two different whistle blowers to the overall effect that the staff were being coached/coerced or threatened. l) On 27 May 2025 interviews of staff were conducted by Ms Heath and Mrs Turney at the three settings. m) On 29 May 2025 Mr Ahmed attended a meeting with Mr Norman and Ms Heath at Ofsted’s Birmingham office. n) On 5 June 2025 and 1 July 2025 further PoT meetings were held by Mrs Mullings, the LADO). The PoT forum determined that the allegation that U had caused direct harm to a child was substantiated. The forum also unanimously determined that the concerns in relation to Mr Ahmed – specifically that there was a poor safeguarding culture across the three nursery settings were substantiated. o) On 24 July 2025 a Notice of Intention (NOI) to cancel was served. p) On 30 July 2025 the Appellant provided a written objection to the intention to cancel. q) On 27 August 2025 an Objections hearing was held at Ofsted’s Birmingham office. Mr Ahmed accompanied by Pooja Yadev, the Appellant’s business development manager, and presented a proposed new management structure with Ms Yadev replacing Mr Ahmed as the NI, and with Mr Uzair (Mr Ahmed’s son) and Ms Yadev becoming directors with Mr Ahmed. It was proposed that an independent early years’ consultant (Sarah Toussaint of Early Years Consultancy Services Limited) would oversee, and support. Mr Ahmed and Ms Yadev presented new processes and procedures to ensure that safeguarding concerns would be identified and properly addressed. r) On 25 September 2025 an Objections outcome letter was served on the Appellant. s) On 1 October 2025 the Notice of Decision to cancel registration was served. t) On 28 October 2025 the appeal was lodged.

The Decision under Appeal

[6]The notice of decision (NoD) dated 1 October 2025 is a matter of record. It is very detailed and we need not relate its contents in full.It sets out the facts and matters relied on by Ofsted regarding the decision to cancel registration across 45 paragraphs. In summary, the Respondent considers that the prescribed requirements for registration have ceased to be satisfied. It considers that the provider is no longer suitable to remain registered. In outline only the broad reasons relied on include that:(1) A staff member at Daffodils Nursery physically assaulted a child (her own child) in October 2024, on the premises. The Appellant treated this as a “cultural” matter, managed it entirely internally, and failed to notify the LADO, Ofsted or Children’s Services.(2) Ofsted’s investigations revealed a poor safeguarding culture across the Appellant’s settings, characterised by inadequate training, poor or non-existent record-keeping, a failure to make safeguarding notifications since 2019, and staff who did not know the correct procedures for handling allegations or referring concerns to external agencies.(3) Prior to scheduled interviews with staff, the Appellant’s nominated individual, Mr Ahmed, and his son, Muhammed Uzair, coached staff on how to respond to the Ofsted’s questions. An instigator/whistleblower informed Ofsted that staff were threatened with the withdrawal of references if they did not answer as instructed.(4) Mr Ahmed has displayed a lack of honesty and transparency with Ofsted, including giving shifting and contradictory accounts of his safeguarding knowledge and the coaching of staff, and he has subsequently refused to engage with Ofsted's legitimate enquiries. Mr Ahmed was absent abroad for prolonged periods without notification to Ofsted, leaving his son, Mr Uzair – who is unqualified – to oversee the settings. The Appeal[7]The Appellant submitted detailed grounds of appeal in which it sets out its case. In summary: a) The Appellant takes issue regarding what happened to the child on 18 October 2024 and submits that the Respondent has factually exaggerated the incident. The Appellant denies that reference was made by the manager, Ms Lola, to this being a “tap”. The Respondent failed to consider that it was the child’s mother who hit the child. b) Mr Ahmed removed himself from the decision-making process because he is the uncle of the staff member who hit her child and he allowed Ms Lola and the acting DSL to exercise their professional judgement as to what “sanction” was to be applied to the NI’s niece. Despite receiving a caution, the DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) have confirmed that the NI’s niece is cleared to work with children. In the event that the NI’s judgement is found to be lacking he has shown remorse, apologised and promised not to make the same mistake again. c) Mr Ahmed, as NI, carried out investigations regarding allegations of a staff member shouting at children and making them cry and other allegations regarding force feeding children and vaping around children. As the Respondent acknowledges the NI was aware of his duty to report such concerns to the LADO and to the Respondent but having reviewed the evidence, he had no such concerns. His position is that he had investigated and the allegations were not substantiated. d) The Respondent is incorrect in the assertion that the Appellant has not made any direct safeguarding notifications since 2019. The Appellant has made three safeguarding notifications since 2019. The Appellant understands its role as a provider and its managers understand the safeguarding thresholds. If it is found that there are any shortcomings the Appellant is willing to improve. e) The Appellant/NI denies the allegations regarding coaching before the Ofsted interviews or coercing or threatening staff regarding jobs or references. The Whatsapp message was meant for his wife. f) The Respondent is wrong to have no confidence in Ms Lola. g) Whilst the Appellant maintains its position above, it is also willing to acknowledge that it could have done more and acted differently. The Appellant is willing to work in partnership with the Respondent to make improvements going forward. h) The Appellant seeks that the decision is set aside or, alternatively, that conditions are imposed so that improvements can be monitored, and so it can continue to provide childcare services. The Scott Schedule[8]The Scott Schedule (p843 and following) sought to distil the core issues in dispute and provided the Appellant with the opportunity to summarise its position as to facts and matters agreed or denied. The Hearing[9]We had received and read an indexed and paginated bundle consisting of 902 pages pdf, which included witness statements and other material, which we had read in advance. We also received helpful skeleton arguments from both counsel. We are very grateful to both counsel for the assistance that they each provided. The Appellant’s position at the start of the hearing[10]The Appellant’s skeleton set out Mr Ahmed’s up to date overall position at the start of the hearing. In summary:a. Whilst there have been safeguarding failures, those have occurred within the context of a 15-year registration which has been overwhelmingly positive with prior praise from the Respondent for their safeguarding processes and practices;b. In response to the Respondent’s concerns, the Appellant has taken dramatic, significant and comprehensive steps under advice from two expert, independent safeguarding consultants. The Appellant is willing to impose upon themselves ongoing external oversight. Further, the staff and leadership of the organisation will have entirely changed. None of the people about whom the Respondent expresses concern will continue and that is more than sufficient to mitigate risk. Existing safeguards (including the Respondent’s role in approving a nominated individual (“NI”)) and directors provide sufficient safeguard.c. Terminating the registration would be disproportionate. Late Evidence[11]The Appellant lodged a T109 application on Friday 3 July 2026 seeking to rely on a fourth witness statement from Mr Ahmed of the same date, as well as statements from Mr Turk and Mr Uddin dated 2 July 2026. In this he expresses his view that Daffodils Nursery should be allowed to continue providing its services. He has offered to step down as both the NI and as the director of Daffodils Nursery Ltd and remains willing to take whatever steps Ofsted considers necessary in order for Daffodils Nursery to continue providing the services it has delivered for more than a decade. He proposes that new directors, a manager and an NI are appointed and that he will not continue in any of these roles. The decision to cancel registration is unfair and disproportionate. He relies, in particular, on the report of Ms Udakis, and contends that suitable conditions can be imposed.[12]At the start of the hearing the judge indicated that whilst the reception of the fourth statement of Mr Ahmed dated 3 July 2026 (and its appendices) might well be in the interests of justice and in the interests of time economy, there was a potential issue to be addressed in the context of the application to rely on specific witness statements from Mr Turk (suggested NI) and Mr Uddin (suggested Director). The panel was concerned that the Appellant may consider that the panel will make findings/express views on whether or not the proposed candidates are suitable for the roles to which each aspires. Decisions regarding suitability of directors and nominated individuals are matters that fall to be considered by the Respondent under specific processes which usually require due diligence inquiries and an interview. It appeared to us, on a preliminary basis, that it would be inappropriate for the panel to make any findings regarding the evidence of Mr Turk and Mr Uddin one way of the other. That was not to say that the fact that Mr Ahmed has plans that persons other than himself would fulfil these roles is not a material consideration, but it appeared to us that this aspect could fairly be assessed without the need to formally receive their individual witness statements.[13]We rose to allow the parties to take instructions. In the event Mr Temple did not pursue the application regarding the witness statements of Mr Turk and Mr Uddin. We agreed to receive the fourth statement of Mr Ahmed which addressed the reasons for the new plans and, amongst other matters, annexed the lengthy and detailed report of Ms Deborah Udakis, an independent consultant. Mr Ahmed’s case is that Ms Udakis, a former Ofsted inspector with very many years’ experience in childcare, has prepared detailed proposals for the oversight of safeguarding, audit and improvement support. She will provide further guidance and assistance to ensure that all new staff are properly trained and will help to oversee the change in culture in relation to safeguarding that Ofsted are seeking.[14]We asked Mr Temple to draft the conditions that the Appellant considered would be appropriate so that Mr Norman, in particular, could consider these. These were helpfully provided. Reasonable Adjustments[15]We had read the evidence regarding Mr Ahmed’s family circumstances and also his health. We resolved to make sure that when he gave evidence we would ensure regular breaks were taken. When the time came for him to give evidence Mr Ahmed explained his family situation and in particular, the recent circumstances regarding one of his sons which was causing Mr Ahmed very particular stress. We took everything he said into account. We made sure that regular and adequate breaks were taken, and that Mr Ahmed understood that if he needed a break he need only ask. The Oral Evidence[16]We heard oral evidence from the following: For the Respondent: Mrs Katharine Wilson, EYRI Mrs Trisha Turney, EYRI Ms Josephine Heath, EYRI Mr James Norman, EYSO For the Appellant: Mr Uzair Ahmed, sole Director of the company and Nominated Individual (NI) for the registration. Mr Muhammed Uzair, Mr Ahmed’s son, and administrator.[17]All witnesses called to give evidence adopted the contents of their statements as the truth, and these stood as their main evidence. Each witness answered questions from the other party, and some questions from the panel.[18]The evidence of Mr Ahmed was completed during the afternoon of 8 July. It was planned that the evidence of Mr Uzair would be given the following morning (on 9 July) and that closing submissions would then be heard. The Appellant’s application to withdraw

The Appeal

[19]When the hearing resumed on 9 July Mr Temple made an application to withdraw the appeal pursuant to paragraph 17 of the Rules. This application was opposed by the Respondent on the grounds that it was in the public interest that findings were made.[20]We retired to consider the application. When the hearing resumed we refused the application whilst reserving our full reasons which we now give.[21]We recognise that paragraph 17 of the Rules provides us with complete discretion as to whether to permit a party to withdraw. We acknowledge that withdrawal orders are often sought (and usually granted) in the run up to the hearing of an appeal, and even on the first morning of an appeal. Occasionally such applications are made after evidence has begun. In our experience an application to withdraw an appeal after the main evidence for the Appellant has been given is very unusual.[22]We considered the application made through the lens of the overriding objective in rule 2. Each application made for withdrawal must turn on the particular circumstances before the Tribunal. Here we are being asked to exercise discretion to permit withdrawal when the evidence was very nearly complete. The saving of court time would therefore be relatively insignificant. The reality is that the main saving of resources would be the time spent in deliberations and in writing the decision.[23]In our view it may be in the interests of fairness and transparency that when issues regarding the decision making of a public body have been ventilated in a public hearing there should be a determination. In our view there is also a point and purpose in the completion of the hearing and determination of the issues because any findings we make may be of bearing in relation to applications that might be made in the future. The ordinary consequence of a decision to cancel registration (if not successfully appealed) is that the provider and/or the NI are automatically disqualified from providing, being directly concerned in the management of, or employed in connection with, childminding and childcare. Indeed, to do so is an offence. However, an application can be made to the Chief Inspector for consent to waiver disqualification if the Appellant/Mr Ahmed wishes to register in future. The refusal of such an application by the Chief Inspector is a determination “of a prescribed description” which carries a right of appeal to the Tribunal under section 74 of the Act. The nature of the appeal right engaged involves a de novo/fresh hearing regarding any disputed past facts – i.e. just like the process undertaken in this appeal.[24]In our view it is in the public interest that, having heard three days of evidence, the panel should make findings of fact and provide a reasoned decision on the core issues in this appeal. We therefore refuse to consent to withdrawal of the appeal. The Law[25]The legal framework for the registration and regulation of nursery provision is to be found in Part 3 of the Childcare Act 2006 (“the Act”). The prescribed requirements in the 2006 Act include matters set out in the Childcare (Early Years Register) Regulations 2008 and the Childcare (General Childcare Register) Regulations 2008. Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Childcare (Early Years Register) Regulations 2008 state that an applicant must be ‘suitable’ to provide early years provision. Additionally, Part 1 Schedule 2 and Part 1 Schedule 5 of the Childcare (General Childcare Register) Regulations 2008 stipulates that an applicant for registration on part A (compulsory part) of the General Childcare Register and part B (voluntary part) must be ‘suitable’ to provide childcare.[26]Section 68 of the Act provides for the cancellation of registration in certain circumstances. Section 68(2) provides that Ofsted may cancel registration of a person registered on the Early Years Register or on either part of the General Childcare Register, if it appears:(a) “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,(b) ….(c) that he has failed to comply with a requirement imposed on him by regulations under that Chapter;…” The Early Years Register[27]The prescribed requirements under the applicable regulations differ in respect of early years provision, later years provision, and voluntary registration. However, all three sets of requirements contain a requirement that the registered individual is “suitable” to provide the relevant type of childminding.[28]The prescribed requirements for Early Years registration are provided for the Childcare (Early Years Register) Regulations 2008. Those which are mainly relevant in this appeal are set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 and include as follows:[1]“The applicant is an individual who is suitable to provide early years childminding…[5]The applicant will comply with the EYFS [Early Years Foundation Stage] welfare requirements…

The Scott Schedule

[8]Every person (other than the applicant) who is to care for children for whom early years childminding is provided is suitable to care for children”[29]The Early Years Foundation Stage (Welfare Requirements) Regulations 2012 (“the Welfare Requirements”) are the regulations issued under section 39(1)(b) and in accordance with s.43 of the 2006 Act. Regulation 3 specifies the Welfare Requirements as being the obligatory provisions in the document entitled Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Framework for Group and School-based Providers (“the EYFS”). Section 40 of the Act imposes a duty upon those registered as an early years’ provider to comply with the welfare requirements of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS).[30]Section 74(1) of the Act provides a right of appeal to the Tribunal: 74 (1) An applicant for registration or (as the case may be) a registered person may appeal to the Tribunal against the taking of any of the following steps by the Chief Inspector under this Part— (a) the refusal of theapplication for registration; ……. (e) the cancellation of the person'sregistration.(2) An applicant for registration or (as the case may be) a registered person may also appeal to the Tribunal against any other determination made by the Chief Inspector under this Part which is of a prescribed description. …… (4) On an appeal the Tribunal must either— (a) confirm the taking of the step, the making of the other determination or the making of the order (as the case may be), or (b) direct that it shall not have, or shall cease to have, effect. (5) Unless the Tribunal has confirmed the taking of a step mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (e) or the making of an order under section 72(2) cancelling a person's registration, the Tribunal may also do either or both of the following— (a) impose conditions on the registration of the person concerned; (b) vary or remove any condition previously imposed on the registration. The Burden and Standard of Proof[31]In so far as any facts are in issue the Respondent bears the burden of proof and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.[32]The burden also rests on the Respondent to satisfy us that cancellation is justified, necessary and proportionately required in the public interest. The issue of proportionality involves a judgement which balances the public interests engaged against the interests of the Appellant. Our Consideration[33]We are required to determine the matter afresh and to make our own decision on the evidence as at today’s date. This includes consideration of new information or material that was not available at the date of decision. It is open to any appellant in any given case to rely on new evidence to show that the facts were not as alleged and/or to dispute alleged breaches of the EYFS welfare requirements and/or to contend that opinions or views reached were wrong and/or mistaken and/or unjustified and/or that the issues have since been addressed. It is also open to any appellant to show, for example, that, whatever the past, there have been changes since the decision was made such that the decision to cancel is no longer in accordance with the law and/or is not today necessary, justified or proportionate.[34]It is also open to the Respondent to rely on evidence regarding events since the decision to cancel was made.[35]The redetermination in this appeal includes consideration of the more detailed evidence provided by both sides in this appeal as well as the oral evidence which has been tested before us. We have considered all the evidence and submissions. We will not set out all the oral or documentary evidence before us but will refer to parts of it when making our key findings. It is not necessary for us to decide every point in dispute before us. If we do not refer to any particular aspect of the evidence/submissions it should not be assumed that we have not taken these into account. Our Findings[36]We have considered all of the evidence in the round. We find that the background facts leading up to the lodging of the appeal are as set out in the chronology at paragraph 5 above.[37]It is appropriate to add to the background facts since the appeal was lodged. Mr Ahmed only seeks the continuation of registration for Daffodils Nursery. Mr Ahmed has sold the former Tulip Day Nursery site to a new owner who has applied for registration. Mr Ahmed has sold the former Stepping Stones site to his son, Mr Mohammed Uzair. Mr Uzair made an application to register a new entity “New Horizons Day Nursery” at the former Stepping Stones location but has since withdrawn it. He intends to make a further application when he has completed the studies he is undertaking in childcare.[38]There are other background matters which are relevant to our overall assessment. Mr Ahmed is a qualified teacher and taught in a sixth from college between 2004 and 2010. He has been running childcare businesses since 2013. He also has some seven other businesses in total. He is married and has five children, including Mohammed Uzair. In his statements Mr Ahmed has provided detail regarding the difficulties faced by two of his children, in particular, and the steps he has taken to safeguard them. We have read and take into account Mr Ahmed’s evidence concerning the difficulties experienced by members of his immediate family in or about 2025 to date, but we need not repeat these matters here.[39]Amongst other matters Mr Ahmed relies upon the past inspection history and repeated judgements of “Good”. He also emphasises that during the last eleven years the settings have helped shape the futures of hundreds of children as reflected in the positive inspection reports and have provided support to families and the local community, as well as and employment and training opportunities to many individuals. He has worked well with local authority advisers and in relation to SEND needs.[40]Returning to allegations/concerns that gave rise to the cancellation decision, the Appellant’s factual case (per para 54 of its skeleton argument) is that the “allegations, taken in their proper context, cannot lead to a finding that the prescribed requirements either were not met, or would not continue to be met.” In this appeal we will make our findings by reference to the headings addressed in the skeleton arguments of both parties and will refer to the main EYFS welfare requirements that we consider are engaged. Issue 1: The October 2024 incident and failure to notify external agencies[41]We find as follows regarding the incident on 18 October 2024. The video sent to the Respondent by the instigator/whistle blower is only 10 seconds long and there is no audio. It shows U seated at a low table with a child (who we know to be her daughter M) in her lap. There are other children at the table to the left-hand side of U. U places M on the floor immediately to her right. M is facing away from /has her back to U and the table. She is looking away from her mother and is sitting on the floor with her legs outstretched in front of her. U can be seen turning the pages of what appears to be a large children’s book. U then strikes the back of M’s head using her right hand. The child’s upper body is propelled forward from the waist. The blow pushes M’s head towards her outstretched legs. At the same time M holds out her arms and her hands appear to make contact with the floor. (This is more obvious in relation to M’s right hand). M’s upper body immediately springs back. The footage then ends. In the background to the left of the screen is Nilab, a student, who then reported the matter to Nusrat.[42]In our view the video is startling evidence of deliberate assault on a young child. The relevant EYFS requirement is at para 3.73:
“Providers must support and manage children’s behaviour appropriately and may not give or threaten corporal punishment or any punishment that could negatively affect a child’s well-being.”
[43]In our view the video speaks for itself. There is no indication as to what precipitated this assault. We exercise caution about what else might safely be inferred from the video given its brevity and the absence of audio. For example, a few seconds more at the end may have shown a reaction by M and/or the other children. What we do consider important is that the video shows that this was an incident involving sufficient force to propel the child’s head forward towards her knees. We find that it was an intentional blow of significant force.[44]What is also significant is that U committed this assault in the nursery, next to other children, and in plain sight of another adult. In our view it is reasonable to draw the inference that U considered that her action was appropriate/acceptable.[45]The matter was reported to management by the student. A decision was made to deal with the matter internally. We will return to this below.[46]Any reasonable, objective and informed person applying ordinary safeguarding principles would have known immediately that this incident should be reported to the LADO straightaway. It was an obvious assault by a member of staff on a child at the setting. The fact that this was an assault by a mother on her own child was irrelevant. The fact of what happened, as shown by the video, mandated referral. The LADO would then decide what action, or investigation by other statutory agencies and/or the police, was necessary in order to safeguard the interests of this child and/or other children.[47]No referral to the LADO or any other agency was made by the setting. Records show that records of three meetings held at the nursery were made: a) That signed by K Lola dated 21.10.24 at 9am and attended by Uzair (Mr Ahmed), Nusrat and Kul. This record includes:
“looking at all the evidence we have decided to suspend her until further notice. We decided to resolve this as a setting.”
We noted that Nusrat made a separate note regarding this meeting in which she recorded:
“we have agreed not to inform social services and deal with this as a setting. b) That signed by Kul Lola dated 21.10.24 at 9.15 am records Uzair, U and Kul as present. This recorded: U “says that it is acceptable to hit your own child, nothing is wrong with this. (U) accepts that she has done a mistake.

(U) will be taken off active duties until further notice…”

[48]In our view it is startling that the staff spoke to U. Proper safeguarding practice is that the nursery/setting should not “investigate” in these circumstances. The allegation should have been referred to the independent LADO who would then coordinate any further investigation.[49]In his first witness statement Mr Ahmed said that at the first meeting he had said that Kul (Lola) (the manager) and Nusrat should decide what to do as he was U’s uncle and so could be biased. In his second witness statement dated 26 March 2006 Mr Ahmed said that at the time of the incident he took a step back and allowed his staff to decide how to deal with it. He said that collectively they took action to safeguard the child and other children. He emphasised in his statement that there was no injury to the child, and an eye was kept on her progress.[50]It is notable that on Mr Ahmed’s oral evidence he did not take any further opportunity to speak to his niece U after the incident either in October 2024 (even though it appears she had then been living at his home for a period of time), or even when she was released on police bail to live at his home for a period of time following her arrest by the police on 3 May 2025.[51]The action said to have been taken by management at Daffodils Nursery in October 2024 was that U was not to be allowed to work with children until she had completed her level 3 childcare course. On the evidence before us she was awarded her Level 3 certificate in March 2025. The effect of Mr Ahmed’s evidence that prior to the October 2024 incident U has been contracted to work for 20 – 25 hours per week and was expected to undertake her level 3 studies in her own time. He said that he continued to pay her full salary whilst she studied course work upstairs in the nursery for a period of some months and that, thereafter, she did not work alone with children unless supervised. We have not been provided with any documentary evidence of any formal action taken in employment terms or any supervision records. Mr Ahmed was unable to explain to us why it was considered that completion of a Level 3 course would adequately address the behavioural or suitability issues raised by U’s assault on her child. There is no evidence before us as to any education, mentoring or supervision directed to the meaning of EYFS § 3.73 – 3.75 for U, nor any evidence regarding any learning points for management and staff.[52]We noted that the overall effect of Mr Ahmed’s evidence as summarised in the SS was that it was an “error of judgement” not to have referred the incident to the MASH (multi-agency safeguarding hub) but that safeguarding action was nevertheless taken by the setting. He denies any minimisation of the incident or any intention to conceal the incident from external safeguarding agencies.[53]Mr Ahmed has denied that Kul Lola ever described what happened as a “tap on the heard”. We accept the evidence of Ms Heath and Mr Norman that on 20 May 2025, and in Mr Ahmed’s presence, Kul Lola described the assault as a “tap”. Ms Heath and Mr Norman were credible and reliable witnesses. We noted that in his own oral evidence Mr Ahmed also described what U did as a “tap”. In our view no reasonable person looking at the video would describe what is shown on the video as a “tap”. We consider that Mr Ahmed and Kul Lola had sought to minimise what was shown on the video in October 2024. We also find that at the PoT meeting he was permitted to attended (in part) Mr Ahmed sought to minimise what was shown in the video. He tried to justify U’s actions (and his own response) on the basis that it is acceptable to smack your own child in Pakistan.[54]In his first statement dated 26 February 2026 at [33] Mr Ahmed said that the failure to refer was not deliberate but was the result of a judgement call by him and his team. We acknowledge that in this context he refers to a failure to report to Ofsted but it is clear that what he says is equally relevant (and in our view more critically relevant) to the failure to refer to the LADO. He said that the incident was “not black and white”: there were “other factors that meant that it could be dealt with internally” and “there is a fine line sometimes and these decisions are not easy.”[55]In our view there is nothing about this incident that supports that there was any “fine line” to be considered. The video showed an assault by a member of staff on a child in plain sight. We find that it was, or should always have been, obvious that a safeguarding referral to the LADO was mandated in the circumstances. In our view the failure to refer this incident, and the fact that Mr Ahmed seeks to explain the decision in the way that he has, strongly supports the existence of a closed safeguarding culture. The fundamental point is that it is not for any nursery or provider to decide what safeguarding action is necessary if there is an allegation that a member of staff has assaulted a child. That is the role of the independent LADO. That is why referral is necessary.[56]When asked by Mr Norman and Ms Heath, Mr Ahmed said he was the DSL (Designated Safeguarding Lead) for all three nurseries. In his first witness statement dated 28 February 2026 Mr Ahmed said that he has a good and proper understanding of his role and of safeguarding thresholds. We heard evidence from Ms Wilson who had spoken with Mr Ahmed on 9 January 2025 at some length because of the information received. Her unchallenged evidence was that she had asked Mr Ahmed about a range of different safeguarding scenarios and was entirely satisfied by his responses that he understood how to manage an allegation in line with the EYFS, including reporting concerns to the LADO, as well as notification to Ofsted.[57]We do not accept that the failure to refer the 18 October 2024 safeguarding incident to the LADO arose because of a lack of knowledge or understanding on the part of Mr Ahmed. We find that Mr Ahmed knew that an allegation that a member of staff had hit a child should have been referred to the LADO and Ofsted also informed. We consider it likely that the lack of referral of the 18 October incident arose because Mr Ahmed did not want the safeguarding incident to be properly investigated.[58]Mr Ahmed was also obliged under EYFS § 3.102 to notify Ofsted that a significant incident had occurred so that the Regulator could decide what, if any, regulatory action was necessary to safeguard other children. He did not do so. In our view it is clear that Mr Ahmed wanted to avoid any scrutiny of the setting by the safeguarding agencies, and by Ofsted as the regulator.[59]Mr Ahmed claims that the decision made by him and/or his staff was appropriate to safeguard the child. In our view, even if the setting had taken all the steps it has claimed to restrict U’s role in the nursery, M was not properly safeguarded. The effect of the failure to refer the allegation to the LADO was that it prevented the independent statutory agencies from considering the needs of the child. When a referral to the LADO was made by Ofsted on 29 April 2025 the matter resulted in a police caution for child cruelty being accepted by U on 19 June 2025. A local authority Family Hub intervention and a New Chance programme were arranged. Those steps would, and should, have been available much earlier to seek to mitigate the issue of risk to M had the Appellant met its safeguarding responsibilities to refer the allegation to the LADO.[60]The setting also failed to safeguard children at the setting. The Appellant’s position is that in March 2025 U was allowed to return to working directly with children at Daffodils Nursery, on the basis that management had deemed her suitable to do so. She should not have been. The incident had not been reported to external agencies as required; no external assessment of risk had been carried out; and there was no documented supervision plan or support in place. The Appellant’s decision to allow U to work with children exposed children to an unsuitable individual for at least a month before Ofsted became involved.[61]It is notable that Mr Ahmed considers that the fact that the Disclosure and Debarring Service (DBS) decided not to place U’s name on either of its lists means that U is suitable to work with children. The Appellant also contends the U’s behaviour did not reach a criminal threshold because a caution was administered. In our view these contentions are mistaken and are consistent with the Appellant’s lack of insight into the seriousness of the issue, and his lack of understanding regarding what is involved in assessing suitability in a registered setting. The fact that U has a police caution for child cruelty means that she is automatically disqualified from working in a registered childcare setting (unless consent to waive disqualification is granted by the Chief Inspector). Issue 2: Poor safeguarding culture, training and record-keeping across all three settings[62]On 20 May 2025 Mr Norman and Ms Heath visited all three nurseries by arrangement with Mr Ahmed. They were accompanied by Mr Ahmed, Mr Uzair and Ms Lola, the manager of Daffodils.[63]The manager of Tulip Day nursery, Ms Arrazehi, said that the setting had no safeguarding records and had not identified a single safeguarding concern about a child in four years of operation (i.e. since it opened).[64]Amongst other matters, Mr Norman and Ms Heath noted that the Appellant had not made a single safeguarding-related notification to Ofsted for any of the settings since November 2019.[65]The Appellant’s case is that this is inaccurate. He had made three safeguarding notifications to Ofsted. We find that two of these notifications, although to do with safety, were not safeguarding notifications. One was regarding a power outage and the other about there being no children on roll. The reason for the third notification is not evidenced and Mr Ahmed cannot recall what it concerned.[66]In our view Mr Ahmed’s response regarding notification to Ofsted is, to say the least, superficial and misses the point. The effect of Mr Norman’s evidence was that he would have expected more safeguarding referrals (i.e. regarding children) to have occurred. We accept his evidence. We noted Ms Ahmed’s evidence that the number of children on roll at all three settings was about 120. Mrs Mullings, the LADO for Sandwell Children’s Trust, told us that two of the settings were in socially deprived areas. She also considered that Halesowen (although outside her remit) was also a socially deprived area.[67]We accept the evidence of Ms Heath and Mr Norman that their investigation revealed two matters at Daffodils Nursery which had not been recognised as potential safeguarding concerns concerning disclosures by children. Ofsted required the Appellant to refer these two matters to social services. Mr Ahmed says that this was done and that social services had confirmed that the setting had acted correctly.[68]One incident related to notes made in or about 10 April 2025. The notes are extremely poor. However, they appear to record that a child, M, had told his mother about a conversation he had had with another child, I, about taking private parts of the body in the mouth. The other incident was a disclosure by a child, D, of being “hurt” and having marks or injuries.[69]It was apparent from Mr Ahmed’s evidence that he considers that any failure to refer cannot be a matter of concern in a situation where, upon required referral by Ofsted, no subsequent action was thereafter taken by the appropriate authorities. However, the point and purpose of referral to the LADO and/or the MASH or to children’s social services is to ensure that relevant, appropriate and timely investigation is undertaken and that information is recorded and/or seen/understood by the statutory safeguarding agencies in the context of any other information that may then be (or which may yet become) available.[70]The incident regarding D appears to be a paradigm example. A record was made regarding D having “often” spoken about marks on her body and saying that her mother or brothers “did it”. D also said:
“I have a bruise on my head”
. D also referred to being hurt by other children. Nusrat spoke to D’s mother who said that she “is a drama queen and to take no notice ignore her.”[71]What the child was recorded to have said on 17 March 2023 was not referred to the MASH or to children’s services, so was not explored and/or evaluated and/or recorded by the statutory safeguarding agencies responsible for deciding what investigation, if any, may need to be undertaken in order to safeguard the safety of the child.[72]On or about 10 April 2023 D’s mother contacted the nursery to say that D had had a fall: she tripped over her brother’s trainers and fell on her back. She had a deep cut that would not stop bleeding and they (the Hospital) had to glue her skin on the back of her head.[73]The fact that the child had made disclosure about being hurt by other(s) a few weeks before might have been relevant to how the injury was perceived at the hospital. This information might have been relevant to assessment of how best to safeguard a child who, on the history presented, had apparently sustained a serious cut to the back of her head causing profuse bleeding, and in the context of an overall history that she had fallen backwards over a pair of trainers.[74]The fact that a number of “mights” are involved is nothing to the point. We are not concerned with cause and effect, but rather with the level of confidence we have that the Appellant and its NI have any real understanding of its responsibility to safeguard the interests of vulnerable children by recognising safeguarding issues that should be referred or reported to the agencies tasked with child protection.[75]Another aspect of the Appellant’s attitude to reporting significant incidents to Ofsted concerns information that emerged because of ordinary checks made by Ofsted when his son, Mr Uzair, applied to be registered. We will return to this at a later stage. Issue 3: Coaching and coercion of staff[76]We have carefully considered all the evidence given by Mr Ahmed and Mr Uzair regarding the Whatsapp message (hereafter “the message”) sent to “Team Daffodil” via Mr Uzair’s mobile phone at 12.39pm on 26 May 2026. A meeting at Daffodils Nursery had been planned to start at midday on 26 May and was underway, attended by Mr Ahmed and some staff members at Daffodil Nursery. This was the day before the visit arranged between Mr Ahmed and Ms Heath for interviews of members of staff about safeguarding. Both Mr Ahmed and Mr Uzair firmly deny that the meeting and/or Mr Uzair’s message to Team Daffodil had anything to do with coaching staff.[77]Mr Ahmed’s evidence was that meeting with staff was sanctioned by Ms Heath who had sent him an email confirming that it was appropriate for him to “reassure” staff.[78]Mr Uzair’s evidence was that he attended the meeting at the nursery on 26 May 2026 but he was late. He said that he had collated answers to questions using artificial intelligence (AI) in part, and all on his own initiative. He said he had not been asked to do so by his father. He said he had collated material in order to reassure his mother as she was anxious about the Ofsted interview the next day. He sent the text as he was entering the room late. He said that he sent it to Team Daffodil in error because he was multi-tasking. We noted that some members of staff acknowledged receipt of the 12.39 pm email and sent thanks. Mr Uzair said that he was unaware of this (and therefore his mistake) because he had switched off communications from Team Daffodil some while before.[79]Looking at the 12.39 pm message as a whole, there are a number of issues arising. The message is headed “Staff Ofsted Interview Preparation - Q&A sheet”. In our view the title is inconsistent with the message having been intended for Mr Uzair’s mother only. According to Mr Uzair his mother was anxious about being asked about the October 2024 incident. In fact, she had not worked for the Appellant then and had never worked at Daffodils nursery. It follows that any question, about that incident, if it were to be asked, would be very easily answered.[80]The overall content of the message is also inconsistent with Mr Uzair’s stated aim of reassuring his mother. Reliance is also placed on the fact that English is an additional language for Mrs Uzair. However, the message contains a number of questions and answers under five sub-headings in English: Safeguarding Knowledge; Incident Handling; Policies and Procedures; Culture and Environment: Training and Supervision. In our view the notion that the contents of the Whatsapp Q&A responses were to address or allay anxiety on the part of Mrs Uzair is not plausible.[81]If the message sent at 12.39 pm on 26 May 2026 had truly been intended for the reassurance of his mother a suggested answer to the question “Were you aware of the incident involving a staff member and her child” could have been very simple indeed. We do not accept that the message was intended for Mrs Uzair and only sent to Team Daffodil by mistake.[82]In our view, it is clear that the purpose of the coaching/prepared answers provided in the message which we find was purposefully sent to Team Daffodil was to seek to influence or prevent Ofsted’s assessment of responses based on genuine knowledge, understanding and recollection. If staff were secure in their safeguarding knowledge they would not need to be prepared in this way. It was coaching. This was, to say the least, highly improper because the aim was to seek to prevent the regulator from making an accurate assessment of genuine responses to questions asked about safeguarding knowledge and practice. The overall aim was to mislead the regulator in its assessment.[83]Mr Norman’s evidence was that at the meeting on 27 August 2025 Mr Ahmed was reluctant to answer his questions as to whether he had asked his son to send the message. Mr Norman said that he asked the question three times and each time Mr Ahmed avoided answering it. Eventually he said that it was “difficult to recall”.[84]We bore in mind Mr Ahmed’s evidence that the effects of his medication is that he is sometimes unable to remember things. Looking at the evidence in the round we consider it very unlikely that Mr Uzair had been engaged in the exercise of distributing the “Staff Ofsted Interview Preparation- Q&A sheet” of his own accord. On the Appellant’s own case Mr Uzair was an administrator and not part of the leadership and management of any of the settings. We consider that Mr Ahmed’s own evidence shows that he was always in charge/control of the settings. It is very evident from the staff interviews that staff referred to Mr Ahmed as the person to whom they would report any concerns. In our view the evidence as a whole shows that Mr Ahmed is, and always has been, the controlling mind of the Appellant company and the decision maker. We consider it unlikely that Mr Ahmed was not able to remember in August 2025 how it came to be that what amounted to a prepared crib was sent by his son to staff during a meeting that he (Mr Ahmed) had organised, albeit in response to a staff suggestion, and not least when the issue of preparation had been raised by Ofsted on the very day of the interviews. We do not accept as credible Mr Ahmed’s evidence that the Team Daffodils meeting was arranged solely for the reassurance of staff, and that he genuinely believed that the scope of this meeting had been sanctioned by Ms Heath.[85]We consider that the efforts involved in preparation for the Ofsted interviews support that Mr Ahmed was highly invested in controlling what employees said to Ofsted. We do not accept that the evidence of either Mr Ahmed or Mr Uzair regarding the purpose of this meeting is reliable or credible.[86]The Respondent’s allegation regarding coercion is based on the account of an instigator/whistleblower that staff were told that a reference would be refused if the employee did not answer Ofsted’s questions as instructed. We recognise that this is a very serious allegation and is not one that is supported by any direct witness evidence, capable of being tested in cross examination. We are asked to attach weight to the fact that an employee, Nusrat, sent a text message stating “And are you willing to give me a reference” at 15.32 i.e. within a few hours after the meeting ended. We noted that this evidence had only emerged because it was part of a message chain sent by Mr Ahmed to Ms Heath to seek to show that the meeting had been requested by staff.[87]We recognise all the risks and dangers regarding whistleblower evidence. Such evidence may be driven by improper motives, including self-interest. We recognise all the potential for unfairness. Having considered all the evidence regarding the purpose of “Staff Ofsted Interview Preparation - Q&A sheet” meeting in the round, we decided that the Respondent has satisfied us, on balance, that it was not a coincidence that an employee had sought to confirm the Appellant’s willingness to provide a reference shortly after the end of the meeting on 27 May 2025. Whatever the motives of the whistle blower, or even the person who asked the question, we consider the fact of the detailed crib answers provided in the Q&A message is consistent with Mr Ahmed’s wish to control the answers that his employees might give to the regulator. The tone and content of many of the suggested answers are wholly in keeping with prepared answers that sought to put the employer in the best possible light.[88]We accept the evidence of Mrs Turney and Ms Heath regarding the answers given by staff at each of the settings in relation to safeguarding issues. We accept the evidence that it is notable that the answers of staff at Tulip Day nurseries, who had not been coached, were very poor indeed.[89]The Appellant relies on the history of past inspections where since 2015 the judgements reached have been “Good”. Mr Norman said that this did not surprise him. An inspection report is a reflection of what is seen at the setting on the day. Inspectors are not involved in a forensic examination of records. They do not necessarily speak to all staff. We accept his evidence.[90]We found that Ms Heath and Mrs Turney were conscientious, reliable and credible witnesses. In our view Mr Norman was a very impressive witness. His evidence was thoughtful, fair, conscientious, and balanced. It was obvious to us that his approach was correctly focussed on the overall picture and the fundamental concerns about protecting the interests of vulnerable children. Mr Ahmed suggested that Mr Norman had not been open to considering the proposals he put forward on 27 August 2025. We disagree. In our view the difficulty was that the proposals were against the background which suggested an enduring lack of candour and transparency regarding what had happened and why. Issues 4 and 7: Integrity of the nominated individual and senior managers[91]The Respondent’s position is that the prescribed requirement for registration is that the applicant will comply with the EYFS welfare requirements, and meet the overarching suitability requirement. The Respondent makes specific observations at para 98 of its skeleton. We have already made some findings above and want to avoid repetition/ double counting.[92]Discrete aspects that require a finding are that we find that Mr Ahmed failed to notify Ofsted that he was leaving the UK for a prolonged period. We note that he attempted to send an email on 25 April 2025 (well after his departure) to a misspelled email address. We recognise that such events occur, In our view the arrangements he had made to deal in his absence were not secure and he had not made sure that the regulator was notified in good time i.e. before he left.[93]The fact that there had been social services involvement with the Ahmed family in 2019 was also not notified under EYFS § 3.102 and this is a significant matter. We will return to this below.[94]Mr Ahmed’s subsequent notification that Stepping Stone Nursery had moved, which led Ofsted to check Companies House, revealed that two settings may have been operating through companies other than the registered person, which would itself have constituted an offence. Mr Ahmed declined to attend a further meeting and gave limited responses to the written questions posed by Mr Norman in correspondence in this regard. Issues 5 and 6: Suitability of the nominated individual, his oversight, and capacity to improve, and (the suitability of) others caring for children.[95]The Respondent relies on concerns regarding the suitability of the nominated individual and others caring for children:(i) Suitability of persons caring for children (see para 14(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations). The social services checks revealed that Mr Ahmed and his wife had been the subject of multiple social services assessments since 2019 in relation to the use of corporal punishment on their own children. Mr Ahmed’s wife was employed at Stepping Stone Nursery to work directly with children. The Appellant does not appear to have given any or any proper consideration to her suitability.(ii) Designated safeguarding lead (EYFS §3.4) Mr Ahmed held the role of main DSL across all three settings whilst residing in Pakistan for a lengthy period and was only contactable by WhatsApp or email. His evidence was that he has left deputy DSLs in place in each setting. We find that such arrangements as he made were not secure. At Stepping Stone Nursery the deputy DSL had not received sufficient safeguarding training. At Tulip Day Nursery Ms Arrazehi described herself as the deputy DSL, but she demonstrated weak safeguarding knowledge and had never received individual supervision. Staff at Tulip Day Nursery were unclear on escalation processes and external reporting obligations. In our view there was to a failure to designate a practitioner who could effectively take lead responsibility for safeguarding children.(iii) DSL support and training (EYFS §3.31) Mr Ahmed’s prolonged absence meant he was unable to provide the ongoing support, advice and guidance to practitioners that the EYFS requires of the DSL.(iv) The Appellant’s response. We agree that the plans presented at the objection hearing and the later production of subsequent performance plans for Muhammed Uzair and Ms Lola were in response to Ofsted’s views rather than the product of any genuine insight. It is startling that both members of staff had been put forward as part of an improvement plan, but were then very swiftly jettisoned. We agree that Mr Ahmed’s responses are reactive rather than proactive.(v) Failure to notify Ofsted of safeguarding concerns (EYFS §3.102). The social services checks revealed that since 2019, Mr Ahmed’s daughter had disclosed to her school that she had been subjected to corporal punishment at home, mainly by her mother but also by Mr Ahmed. We agree that irrespective of the truth or otherwise of these allegations, this information should have been notified to Ofsted at the time the allegations were made, because they were significant events likely to affect the suitability of Mr Ahmed as nominated individual. The information was also highly relevant to the suitability of Mrs Uzair at the point at which she became employed. Issue 8: Events since the Decision[96]It is apparent that Mr Ahmed was reluctant to answer a number of questions that Mr Norman has raised in correspondence. In the event partial responses were provided but, amongst other matters, the concerns about whether the settings had been operating as separate businesses (and therefore without valid registration) had remained unresolved. In our view the evidence shows that, for reasons only known to himself, Mr Ahmed had chosen to incorporate Stepping Stones Nursery and Tulip Day Nursery as separate companies. His evidence that he believed that these settings were not part of the existing registration is contradicted by contemporaneous email correspondence with the Respondent’s registrations department.[97]We focus on the core issues regarding safeguarding. In our view the evidence of Mr Ahmed as a whole contained many inconsistencies. We find that his evidence sought to minimise the potential significance of events and deflect responsibility. We find that he sought to hide the reality regarding the existence of a closed safeguarding culture where the needs of the business have been put before the needs of young children, and where he has denied his responsibility for employees being coached so as to prevent the regulator from proper assessment. In our view he was not a credible or reliable witness.[98]We consider that the facts demonstrate Mr Ahmed’s disregard for the needs of vulnerable children. We find that he lacks insight regarding the potential impact of the breaches of the EYFS on the lives of the children involved. In our view the evidence as a whole shows the existence of a closed safeguarding culture, where the Appellant, by Mr Ahmed, was unwilling or unable to put the needs of children in its care first.[99]At a very late stage in this appeal Mr Ahmed advanced the case that he will now stand back completely and let others make sure that the welfare requirements of the EYFS are met in future. We do not accept that he will relinquish actual control of the Appellant company or the registration. We do not accept that Mr Ahmed has changed his views or attitude towards the requirements of the regulations or his attitude to the regulator. In our view it is very clear indeed that Mr Ahmed says that which suits his interests at the time.[100]The prescribed requirement for registration is that the applicant/appellant is suitable. For all the reasons we have explained above we find that the Appellant is not suitable. We also find that it is unlikely that the Appellant will comply with the EYFS welfare requirements.[101]In our view, irrespective of who Mr Ahmed puts forward as the Director and/or NI and/or the manager, he is the owner/provider. In his own words the company provides “his bread and butter”. We have no confidence that he will be a “silent partner” in the company i.e. the registered entity. The basis for the continuation of registration that he puts forward is that he will have nothing to do with the business but we consider that, whatever arrangements are put in place regarding an NI and a new director, he will retain ownership/control. We consider that his promise to let others direct/control, and to not even enter the premises, would be impossible to monitor or enforce.[102]The Appellant also relies on the proposal of Ms Udakis regarding independent safeguarding oversight, audit, and improvement support. Ms Udakis, who has decades of relevant experience, considers that the proposed 90-day recovery plan provides a clear, measurable, and achievable pathway towards safeguarding compliance and improvement. In her view, the inclusion of identified milestones, independent evaluation points and written assurance reports will allow progress to be monitored objectively and evidenced transparently. The Appellant suggests that the panel can be reassured that there will be programme of regular visits by Ms Udakis. In Mrs Udakis’ opinion “if implemented fully and supported by leaders who demonstrate openness, transparency and a commitment to continuous improvement, the measures contained within this proposal are sufficient to significantly reduce safeguarding risk and establish a stronger and more accountable safeguarding culture.”[103]We have found that Mr Ahmed, who owns the registered entity, has not been open, transparent or honest. Amongst many other matters, we have found his response to the video taken on 18 October was not directed to the interests of the child but was directed to the interests of his business.[104]We also do not consider that Mr Ahmed is committed to improvement. We say this because we have found that he was responsible for a closed safeguarding culture, and one where we have found that his efforts were directed towards preventing Ofsted from evaluating standards regarding safeguarding knowledge, rather than working towards improvement. In our view it is also a stark fact that there is no evidence of any reflection undertaken to address the fact that a member of staff had assaulted a child in plain sight. The simple fact that this incident had occurred was an opportunity for education, training and improvement, yet the evidence is that the fact that this event had occurred was effectively hidden away and, when it was revealed, was minimized.[105]We have studied the suggested conditions placed before us. We do not consider that there are any conditions that could realistically be imposed that could conceivably address the issues given the lack of transparency, honesty and integrity that the Appellant, by its sole Director, has repeatedly shown. The Appellant company is unsuitable to be registered to provide childcare. We have no confidence that Mr Ahmed as the owner the company will cooperate with the Regulator or the aims of regulation, or that he would allow any new director, NI or manager any real or meaningful opportunity to do so.[106]The Respondent has satisfied us that the discretionary decision to cancel registration under section 68 (2) (a) and (c) of the Act was/is in accordance with the law.[107]We are satisfied that the decision was, and remains, objectively justified and necessary in order to protect the safety of children and to meet the public interest purpose involved in the welfare requirements of the EYFS.[108]Mr Ahmed’s personal and business interests are such as to merit the protection of the ECHR by reference to Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 8.[109]In reaching our decision on the issue of proportionality we recognise that the impact of this decision could not be more serious for Mr Ahmed and his family. On the one hand we recognise that cancellation will bring an immediate end to registration and with very profound impact upon Mr Ahmed’s long career in childcare. Cancellation will have a significant financial impact given the loss of income involved regarding Daffodils Nursery. Mr Ahmed will also automatically be disqualified from being registered again in a childcare or childminding context. The decision may well also have a profound impact on Mr Ahmed’s ability to work in posts such as teaching or similar, or in health care or related posts. It may also impact upon Mr Ahmed’s business interests regarding the company he runs which delivers education courses in childcare. The reasons for cancellation may well also have broader reputational implications for Mr Ahmed affecting his standing in the community.[110]On the other hand, we attach very significant weight to the public interest in children being looked after in a way that is compliant with the regulations i.e. that the provider is suitable, and that the provider will comply with the welfare requirements of the EYFS.[111]We accept that, as a matter of principle, that the prospect that conditions might address the public interest is relevant to the issue of proportionality and must be considered. The principle of proportionality requires that the panel does no more than is necessary to meet the public interest engaged.[112]However, we consider that the findings we have made regarding Mr Ahmed’s lack of honesty and integrity, his lack of insight, his failure to prioritise the interests of vulnerable children above the interests of his business and his attitude towards regulation and the regulator are such that the only outcome that adequately addresses the public interest is that of cancellation.[113]We have balanced the impact of the decision upon the interests of the Appellant/Mr Ahmed against the public interest. We consider that the facets of the public interest engaged far outweigh the interests of the Appellant and all those affected. In our view the decision to cancel registration was (and remains) justified, necessary and proportionate. Decision The decision to cancel registration is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Judge S Goodrich First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) Date Issued: 4 August 2026