The Proprietor of Drive Preparatory School v Secretary of State for the Department of Education [2026] UKFTT 846 (HESC)
District Tribunal Judge D Hyland
[1]This is an appeal brought under section 124 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 against the decision of the Secretary of State to remove the school from the register of independent schools on the basis that it was failing to meet the Independent School Standards. The Tribunal determines the appeal on its merits and must reach its own conclusions on the evidence before it at the date of the hearing. In doing so, the Tribunal has had regard to the reasons given for the decision, including the Ministerial submission (p.408), which identified serious and widespread failings and a lack of confidence in leadership and management.[2]The Tribunal notes that there was an error in the submission in relation to the chronology of the action plans, in that the sequence of the approved and rejected plans was transposed. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that this does not materially affect the weight to be given to the decision, since it remained the case that an initial action plan had been approved but a subsequent plan was rejected as inadequate. The Tribunal does not approach the matter as a review of the lawfulness of the decision but instead determines for itself whether the Standards were met and, if not, whether deregistration was justified and proportionate in all the circumstances. Attendance[3]The hearing took place over four days. The Appellant, Mr Nicholas Faulkner (proprietor of the Drive Preparatory School), attended throughout and represented himself. He called no witnesses in support of his case.[4]The Respondent was represented by Mr M Vinall, of Counsel, instructed by Ms A Birkin of the Government Legal Department on behalf of the Department for Education. Also present throughout was the Respondent’s witness, Mr Michael Bell, a senior civil servant within the Department for Education and the decision-maker in relation to the deregistration, who gave evidence on Day 2.[5]On Day 1, the Tribunal heard opening submissions. Ms Michelle Payne, His Majesty’s Inspector with Ofsted and the lead inspector, was present from Day 1 to Day 3 and gave evidence on Day 2.[6]On Day 3, the Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Ellison, formerly His Majesty’s Inspector with Ofsted, who attended by video link, and from the Appellant, Mr Faulkner.[7]Observers from the Department for Education were present throughout, both in person and via video link.[8]On Day 4, the Tribunal heard closing submissions from both parties.[9]Each day included a one-hour adjournment for lunch, together with regular breaks, to ensure that Mr Faulkner was able to participate fully in the proceedings. Tribunal bundle and documentary evidence[10]The Tribunal was provided with an electronic hearing bundle consisting of 1301 PDF pages. Despite the best efforts of the Respondent, the internal pagination did not correspond with the PDF page numbering. Care was therefore taken throughout the hearing to refer to both sets of page numbers, particularly as Mr Faulkner was working from a paper bundle.[11]The bundle included the relevant inspection reports and evidence relied upon by the Respondent, including the full Ofsted inspection report of November 2023, the monitoring inspection report of December 2024, and the inspection report of May 2025.[12]The bundle also included the fire risk assessment dated January 2024, commissioned by the school in response to the first Ofsted inspection and in accordance with its obligations under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Further fire safety material was included, comprising the fire authority’s notification of deficiencies issued in June 2025, and a subsequent fire risk assessment undertaken later that month. In addition, the Tribunal had before it the school’s action plans, including the action plan approved following the 2023 inspection and the subsequent action plan which was rejected by the Secretary of State.[13]Witness evidence was provided in the form of written statements from Ms Michelle Payne and Mr Ellison (Ofsted), Mr Michael Bell (Department for Education), and the Appellant, Mr Faulkner. Additional documentary material included correspondence between the parties, the letter dated 6 June 2025 requesting voluntary closure, the Appellant’s representations in response, and the Ministerial submission leading to the decision under appeal.[14]The Tribunal also considered photographs of the school premises, extracts from policies and records (including the single central record and safeguarding materials), and such further documents as were referred to during oral evidence and submissions.[15]It was confirmed on Day 1 that there was no additional or late evidence. However, a small number of documents were subsequently provided electronically by the Respondent, including an amended Ministerial submission correcting the error relating to the action plans, a copy of the Appellant’s opening statement, and a page of testimonials which had not previously been seen by the Respondent and which were produced by the Appellant as part of his closing submissions. Background[16]The Appellant is the proprietor of the Drive Preparatory School; an independent school registered under section 95 of the Education and Skills Act 2008. The school has been operated by the Appellant for approximately 29 years. It is a small independent school which, according to the Appellant, provides education to pupils who are capable of accessing a mainstream curriculum, but who may have experienced difficulties in larger school environments. The Appellant’s evidence was that some pupils have identified special educational needs and that a number are placed by local authorities.[17]As an independent school, the school is required to comply with the Independent School Standards prescribed under section 94 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 and the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014.[18]The school was the subject of a full inspection by Ofsted in November 2023. That inspection identified a number of concerns regarding compliance with the Independent School Standards, including in relation to curriculum, safeguarding, and fire safety. In particular, the school was unable at that time to demonstrate compliance with fire safety requirements.[19]In response to the findings of that inspection, the school submitted an action plan, which was subsequently approved by the Secretary of State. The school also commissioned a fire risk assessment in January 2024, which identified a number of deficiencies requiring attention, some of which were assessed as representing a substantial level of risk and requiring urgent action.[20]A monitoring inspection was carried out by Ofsted in December 2024. That inspection found that progress had been made in some areas but that concerns remained.[21]The Secretary of State required the submission of a further action plan, which was provided by the school but subsequently rejected.[22]A further inspection was conducted by Ofsted between 20 and 22 May 2025. It was described by the Respondent as comprising both monitoring and full inspection elements. It identified continued non-compliance with multiple Parts of the Independent School Standards, including requirements relating to welfare, health and safety, suitability of staff, premises, and leadership and management.[23]Following that inspection, the Secretary of State wrote to the Appellant on 6 June 2025 requesting that the school close voluntarily and indicating that consideration was being given to deregistration. Thereafter, the fire authority issued a notification of deficiencies in June 2025 identifying breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The school subsequently commissioned a further fire risk assessment later that month.[24]On 21 July 2025, the Secretary of State decided to remove the school from the register of independent schools on the basis that it was failing to meet the Independent School Standards. This appeal is brought in respect of that decision on the basis that the Appellant disputes both the extent of non-compliance with the Independent School Standards and the proportionality of deregistration. Legal Framework[25]The statutory framework governing this appeal is contained in the Education and Skills Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”) and the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014 (“the 2014 Regulations”).[26]Under section 94 of the 2008 Act, the Secretary of State is required to prescribe standards for independent schools. Those standards are set out in the 2014 Regulations and are commonly referred to as the Independent School Standards (“the Standards”). They include, among other matters, requirements relating to the curriculum provided (Part 1), safeguarding and the welfare, health and safety of pupils (Part 3), the suitability of staff (Part 4), premises and accommodation (Part 5), and the quality of leadership and management (Part 8).[27]The Tribunal is concerned in this appeal with a number of interrelated requirements within the Independent School Standards. These include, in particular, the requirement under Part 1 that the proprietor ensures the provision of a suitably structured and coherent curriculum; the requirements under Part 3 relating to safeguarding and the welfare, health and safety of pupils; and the requirements under Part 4 concerning the suitability of staff. In relation to the latter, paragraphs 18 and 19 require specified pre-employment checks to be undertaken, and paragraph 21 requires the proprietor to maintain a register recording those checks, known as ‘the single central record’ (or SCR).[28]Of particular importance in this case are the fire safety obligations imposed by paragraph 12 of Part 3, which incorporate compliance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, including the duties to undertake a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and to implement and maintain appropriate fire safety measures. The Standards relating to premises and accommodation under Part 5 are also relevant where the physical condition of the school environment bears upon pupil safety.[29]These requirements are brought together by Part 8, which places responsibility on the proprietor to ensure that the Standards are met and maintained in practice and that appropriate systems are implemented effectively. The issues in this appeal therefore include not only whether individual Standards were met, but whether the leadership and management of the school was capable of securing and sustaining compliance across these areas.[30]Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an independent school is failing to meet one or more of the Standards, section 116(1)(b) of the 2008 Act provides that the Secretary of State may remove the school from the register of independent schools.[31]This appeal is brought under section 124 of the 2008 Act and is a full merits appeal. The Tribunal must determine for itself, on the evidence before it at the date of the hearing, whether the Standards were met and, if not, whether the decision to remove the school from the register was justified.[32]In determining that question, the Tribunal has regard to the reasons given by the Secretary of State for the decision but is not confined to those reasons and does not consider whether the decision was unlawful in public law terms. Rather, the Tribunal reaches its own conclusions on the facts and determines the appropriate outcome.[33]Where failures to meet the Standards are established, the Tribunal must consider whether removal from the register was a proportionate response in all the circumstances. That assessment includes consideration of the nature and seriousness of the failings, the extent to which they have been remedied, and the capacity of the school’s leadership and management to secure compliance within a reasonable period. Evidence Fire safety[34]The Tribunal heard evidence in relation to fire safety. The November 2023 inspection report records that the school was unable to demonstrate compliance with fire safety requirements. Following that inspection, a fire risk assessment was commissioned by the school in January 2024. That assessment identified a number of deficiencies, including matters assessed as presenting a substantial level of risk and requiring urgent action.[35]Ms Payne’s evidence related to the May 2025 inspection, during which concerns were identified in relation to fire safety.[36]The Appellant’s evidence was that he took steps in response to the January 2024 assessment but did not accept all of its conclusions. In particular, he rejected the concerns expressed regarding the suitability of the means of escape from the upper floor. He stated that he understood the operation of the arrangements and was confident that they would function safely in the event of an emergency. He accepted that certain arrangements employed equipment not for their intended purpose. On the door into the building from the fire escape, he had installed a door retention device. The intended purpose of this device is to keep the door open and to close it in the event of a fire. However, he had installed it to unlock the door and allow access to the building only in the event of a fire alarm. He accepted that this was not its designed use and had not been tested by him but maintained that he believed it would operate effectively. In any event, he added, the door could be forced open given that the hasp was only lightly secured.[37]Evidence was also heard regarding evacuation from the top floor. The Appellant accepted that egress involved exiting and re-entering the building at a lower level. He stated that although concerns were raised about this, no enforcement action had ever been taken requiring closure of the school on fire safety grounds, and that he had proposed restricting the use of the upper floor to GCSE pupils if required.[38]Further evidence concerned the condition and use of fire safety equipment. The Appellant accepted that some emergency signage was out of date and that he had purchased fire door stickers which were applied to doors that were not fire doors. His evidence was that, at the time, he did not consider that this gave rise to any issue and he continued to maintain that position when giving evidence, until it was put to him that this might give a misleading impression as to the level of fire protection provided.[39]The inspection evidence base included a photograph of a fire extinguisher and recorded that extinguishers were present throughout the school without evidence of inspection labels and that they had been used to prop open doors. The Appellant did not accept that this was a regular practice, but in his evidence, endorsed a certificate of fire extinguisher inspections with a note that sometimes one was used to open the hall door when PE equipment was being brought in from the back storage rooms. Mr Faulkner also accepted that new extinguishers had been purchased and placed within the school and that, at least initially, they were unchecked and unlabelled.[40]More generally, the Appellant’s evidence was that he considered himself to understand the fire safety arrangements in place and was confident in their effectiveness. He accepted that there were matters which, with hindsight, he might have approached differently but maintained that he believed the arrangements to be safe at the time. Single Central Record (SCR)[41]The Tribunal heard evidence that the school had not consistently complied with requirements relating to pre-employment checks and the maintenance of the single central record.[42]The Appellant accepted that, in a number of cases, required checks had either not been carried out or had not been properly evidenced. This included situations where confirmation of checks had not been obtained from external organisations and where reliance had been placed on existing documentation rather than obtaining the required evidence directly. He also accepted that the single central record contained omissions and inaccuracies, and that some required checks, including overseas checks in appropriate cases, had not been undertaken. Evidence was also given that, in some instances, checks were completed late or after the member of staff had commenced their role. The Appellant maintained that there was no identified evidence of harm arising from the deficiencies and that, in his view, this did not indicate a need for further checks beyond those already undertaken.[43]In terms of governance, the Appellant’s evidence was that although he held overall responsibility for the SCR, in practice, it was to be completed by the headteacher and overseen and checked by him. The Appellant accepted, however, that he had not undertaken formal safer recruitment training and maintained that he could rely on his own experience in carrying out that oversight.[44]The Appellant’s evidence was that he had developed or refined the system used for recording checks and considered that it was sufficient. However, the inspection evidence indicated that the system was not operating effectively in practice, as reflected in the continuing omissions and inconsistencies and failures to ensure that all required checks had been completed before staff took up their roles.[45]He further stated that the issues identified were capable of being resolved within a short period. Safeguarding[46]The Tribunal received detailed evidence concerning the school’s safeguarding arrangements, including the written statement of Ms Payne, and from the Appellant’s own evidence. The designated safeguarding lead (“DSL”) was the Deputy Head Teacher, who was not called as a witness.[47]The DSL described to inspectors the operation of safeguarding arrangements in practical terms but also raised a number of concerns regarding the effectiveness of safeguarding leadership and the operation of systems in practice. He stated to Ms Payne that there was a lack of clarity regarding the respective roles of the DSL and Deputy DSL (the Head Teacher), and that he had not reviewed the safeguarding policy, which was held by the Head Teacher and the Appellant. He further stated that he was unaware of actions taken to mitigate risks to pupils beyond those concerns reported directly to him, that he would benefit from additional support and guidance to improve safeguarding practice, and expressed frustration that the actions of the Head Teacher were not clearly communicated.[48]The inspection material records that, when these matters were raised with the Head Teacher, it was asserted that safeguarding was “great”, notwithstanding the finding in the November 2023 inspection that safeguarding was not effective. In addition, Ms Payne records that the Appellant stated that the single central record was “just a list and a check box”. In oral evidence, the Appellant did not accept that he had used that phrasing, stating that he could not recall the exact words and that he may instead have said that “the boxes were not ticked”.[49]The DSL’s account also addressed the culture within the school. He stated that there was “no space to carry out his responsibilities”, that “the culture is wrong here as the Proprietor and Head Teacher will not hear it”, and that “there is no accountability at all so they can do what they like and choose what they listen to”. He further stated that he did not have the autonomy and accountability expected of a leader. Ms Payne recorded this as describing a closed culture with limited challenge and accountability.[50]The inspection evidence identified weaknesses in safeguarding record-keeping. There were gaps in the records and instances in which it was not possible to identify what action had been taken in response to concerns or whether matters had been followed up. Similar issues identified at the 2023 inspection were present at the time of the May 2025 inspection. The Appellant himself accepted on one occasion that records relating to a safeguarding incident could not be retrieved.[51]The Appellant’s evidence was that the school operated within a small leadership structure which allowed for immediate communication. He stated that systems were in place to support safeguarding, including supervision arrangements, attendance monitoring through digital registers, and communication systems between staff. He maintained that safeguarding systems were functioning in practice and that the issues identified by inspectors related primarily to the format and recording of documentation rather than to any underlying failure in safeguarding arrangements. Curriculum[52]Ms Payne gave evidence that a substantial part of the May 2025 inspection, amounting to almost a full day, was devoted to examining the curriculum. She stated that inspectors undertook detailed work across a number of subjects and developed a good understanding of the systems in place. Notwithstanding that, the inspection concluded that the curriculum did not meet the requirements of the Standards. In particular, it was found that the curriculum was not sufficiently coherent or logically sequenced and did not consistently build on pupils’ prior knowledge or take appropriate account of their starting points. Concerns were also identified in relation to the absence of a structured phonics programme and a lack of systematic tracking of pupils’ reading ability.[53]The Appellant’s evidence was that he had developed a new curriculum system in response to earlier concerns. He described this as an electronic “curriculum overview” which set out subject content, topics and links to learning objectives, and which was intended to provide a structured but flexible framework for teachers. He accepted that, at the time of the inspection, the system was not fully implemented, estimating that it was approximately 70–80 per cent complete, with the overarching framework largely in place but subject-level detail and lesson planning still to be completed by staff. He stated that the system would have been fully operational within a short period thereafter.[54]The Appellant further stated that he had offered to demonstrate the system to inspectors during the inspection, but that they declined to view it in detail. He maintained that the inspectors did not fully appreciate the operation of the system as designed.[55]The inspection evidence indicated that, notwithstanding the existence of the new framework, there were difficulties in its implementation. In particular, staff were not consistently able to demonstrate how the curriculum operated in practice or how it ensured progression in learning. There was evidence that the system was not uniformly understood or embedded, and that planning at classroom level did not reflect a sufficiently structured or coherent curriculum. In relation to phonics, the inspection identified that pupils were not working consistently at an appropriate level and that there was no clear programme of progression. The Appellant’s evidence was that this related to a small and atypical cohort of pupils with additional needs, and that phonics teaching was taking place using available materials, albeit not through a formally adopted scheme.[56]Overall, the Tribunal heard evidence that, while work had been undertaken to redesign the curriculum, the new system was not fully implemented at the time of the inspection and was not consistently reflected in teaching or staff understanding. Leadership and Management[57]The Tribunal heard evidence relating to the leadership and management of the school, including from Mr Bell and from the Appellant himself. Mr Bell’s evidence addressed the decision-making process and the basis on which the Secretary of State concluded that there were serious and persistent failures to meet the Independent School Standards. He referred to deficiencies identified across a number of areas, some of which were identified at the first inspection, and explained that the decision was taken on the basis that there was insufficient confidence in the school’s leadership and management to secure compliance within a reasonable period. He also referred to the rejection of the further action plan submitted by the Appellant and the decision to proceed to deregistration.[58]The inspection material also addressed leadership and management, including the extent to which systems were implemented and maintained in practice across safeguarding, staff checks, and the curriculum. Evidence arising from the inspection, including the account given by the DSL, referred to issues concerning clarity of roles, communication between senior leaders, and the way in which systems, created by the Appellant, were considered to operate in practice.[59]The Appellant’s evidence was that his role as proprietor was ‘I usually sorted out problems, we had a DSL for emotional problems, but if anything was broken, an explanation was needed for the computers or something required to be fetched.’. He described himself as although sounding like a janitor but being that extra person if required. He said, ‘I was filling in the gaps and was also doing back-office stuff, the accounts etcetera’.[60]He described an approach in which he sought to address matters directly, sometimes by implementing alternative arrangements which he considered effective, such as the door device, rather than by a specific reference to the detailed requirements of the Standards. He maintained that he had made a number of changes following earlier inspections and that systems had been developed or refined across the school such as the SCR and the curriculum.[61]The Appellant also gave evidence that further improvements had been made following the May 2025 inspection and that, in his view, there was no reason to conclude that any remaining issues would not have been addressed within a short period. He stated that the decision to reject the further action plan and to proceed to deregistration had been taken prematurely. He did not accept that there was a basis for concluding that he would not correct the matters identified, maintaining that the school had a history of responding to issues and that the systems in place were capable of being brought into compliance. The Tribunal’s analysis, conclusions and findings.[62]In reaching its conclusions, the Tribunal has adopted an issue-by-issue approach. Rather than follow the order of the Scott Schedule, it has addressed the issues thematically to reflect the way in which the evidence was presented and the overlap between issues, and to avoid unnecessary repetition. The Tribunal has sought to identify matters which are agreed, those established by the documentary evidence, and those on which findings are required. Fire safety[63]The Tribunal finds that the requirements of paragraph 12 of Part 3 were not met.[64]It is not in dispute that the January 2024 fire risk assessment, commissioned by the school following the November 2023 inspection, identified deficiencies, including matters assessed as presenting a substantial level of risk. The Tribunal finds that those deficiencies had not been remedied by the time of the May 2025 inspection.[65]The Appellant did not accept key conclusions of that assessment, in particular in relation to the suitability of the means of escape from the upper floor, and relied on his own understanding of how the arrangements would operate. The Appellant suggested that the assessment had been verbally amended following a telephone conversation with the Head Teacher. In the absence of any supporting documentary evidence, and having not heard from the Head Teacher, the Tribunal finds that it is more likely that no such amendment was made. The Tribunal places no weight on the Appellant’s belief that he understood the requirements of fire safety.[66]The Tribunal finds that elements of the fire safety arrangements involved adaptations which were not in accordance with their intended purpose and which had not been properly tested. For example, it is not in dispute that a door device was used for a purpose other than that for which it was designed.[67]The Tribunal also finds that there were deficiencies in fire safety equipment and signage. The Appellant accepted that signage was out of date and that fire door stickers had been applied to doors that were not fire doors. The Tribunal was concerned that the application of such stickers created a misleading impression as to the fire resistance of those doors and more, that this appeared not to be recognised and acknowledged by the Appellant, even up the date of his appeal.[68]The Tribunal also found that fire extinguishers were present without evidence of inspection labels and were used to prop open doors, matters which the Appellant did not accept were regular practice, but did not materially dispute had occurred.[69]Taken together, the Tribunal finds that the arrangements in place did not demonstrate compliance with the Fire Safety Order and that the requirements of paragraph 12 of Part 3 were therefore not met. Single Central Record (SCR)[70]The Tribunal finds that the requirements of paragraphs 18, 19 and 21 of Part 4 were not met.[71]The Tribunal finds that the single central record was incomplete and inaccurate, with omissions and inconsistencies in recording required checks. Although the Appellant had developed a system for recording checks, the Tribunal found that the evidence showed it was not working effectively in practice.[72]The Tribunal is concerned about the governance arrangements relating to the SCR. Responsibility for maintaining the SCR lay in practice with the Head Teacher, with whom the Appellant was in a personal relationship, with the Appellant undertaking a checking and overseeing role. The Appellant had not himself undertaken formal safer recruitment training and relied only on his own experience.[73]The Tribunal finds that these arrangements did not provide effective or independent oversight of compliance with safer recruitment requirements. In particular, there was no checking by a suitably trained person independent of that relationship. This was of particular concern in the context of the closed culture identified in the evidence.[74]The Tribunal is also concerned that the Appellant treated the absence of identified harm as indicating that the arrangements were sufficient and that no further checks were required. The Tribunal does not accept that approach. The purpose of the requirements is to ensure that appropriate checks are undertaken before risks materialise.[75]Taking these matters together, the Tribunal finds that the school did not meet the requirements of Part 4. Safeguarding[76]The Tribunal finds that the requirements of paragraph 7 of Part 3 were not met.[77]The Tribunal accepts the Appellant’s evidence that safeguarding systems were in place but finds that those systems were not operating effectively in practice, as demonstrated by the lack of clarity of roles, deficiencies in communication, and the gaps in safeguarding records[78]The Tribunal notes that the DSL was not called to give evidence and that his account, as recorded in the inspection material, was not tested in cross-examination, nor effectively challenged by the Appellant. On the basis of that evidence, the Tribunal finds that the DSL, who accepted that he had not reviewed the safeguarding policy, was not aware of actions taken to mitigate risks to pupils beyond those concerns reported directly to him. It also finds that actions taken by senior leaders were not consistently communicated and that there was therefore a lack of clarity in safeguarding roles and responsibilities. The Tribunal further finds that, in practice, the DSL did not have the autonomy and accountability expected of that role.[79]The Tribunal has also had regard to the Appellant’s reliance on personal relationships in the management of safeguarding matters. It noted with concern that during the course of the appeal, he made direct contact with the parents of a former pupil to check their progress. The Tribunal was concerned that this reflected an approach relying on informal and personal communication rather than structured safeguarding processes and established lines of accountability.[80]Taking these matters together, the Tribunal finds that safeguarding arrangements were not effective at the relevant time. Curriculum[81]The Tribunal finds that the requirements of Part 1 were not met.[82]The Tribunal accepts Ms Payne’s evidence that a substantial part of the May 2025 inspection was devoted to examining the curriculum and that inspectors developed a good understanding of the systems in place.[83]The Tribunal also accepts that whilst the Appellant had developed a new curriculum system, it is not in dispute that, at the time of the inspection, it was not fully implemented. The Appellant accepted that it was approximately 70–80 per cent complete.[84]The Tribunal finds that, notwithstanding the existence of this framework, the curriculum was not operating effectively in practice. Staff were not consistently able to demonstrate how the curriculum worked or how it ensured progression, and it was not embedded at classroom level.[85]The Tribunal has considered the Appellant’s evidence that he offered to demonstrate the system and that it would have been fully operational within a short period. However, the Tribunal also notes that concerns about the curriculum had first been identified at the November 2023 inspection and finds that the school had had ample time to develop and implement a compliant curriculum. At the time of the May 2025 inspection, this had not been achieved.[86]Taking these matters together, the Tribunal finds that the curriculum did not meet the requirements of the Standards at the relevant time. Leadership and Management[87]The Tribunal finds that the requirements of Part 8 were not met.[88]The Tribunal found that, beyond the individual failings identified, the Appellant’s approach to leadership was not capable of ensuring compliance with a regulatory regime.[89]The Tribunal has considered the deficiencies identified across the areas of fire safety, safeguarding, SCR, and the curriculum. These were not isolated failings but reflected a pattern over time, with a number of issues identified at the November 2023 inspection still present at the time of the May 2025 inspection.[90]The Tribunal accepts that the Appellant had developed systems in relation to these areas. However, as found above, those systems were not operating effectively in practice. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant placed undue reliance on the creation of systems rather than on ensuring their effective implementation and consistent use.[91]The Tribunal has had regard to the Appellant’s own description of his role. He described himself as addressing problems as they arose and “filling in the gaps”, including undertaking a range of practical and administrative tasks. The Tribunal finds that this reflects an approach focused on responding to individual issues rather than ensuring systematic compliance with the Standards.[92]The Tribunal further finds that, in a number of areas, the Appellant adopted solutions which he considered to be effective, but which did not secure compliance with the applicable requirements. The Tribunal considers that the Appellant demonstrated a degree of confidence in his own judgment, drawing on his experience of running the school, which was not supported by compliance with the Standards in practice.[93]Notwithstanding the Appellant’s experience, he was unable to satisfy the inspection body that the requirements of the Standards had been met, and the Tribunal reaches the same conclusion on the evidence before it.[94]The Tribunal notes that many of the deficiencies identified were not new and that the school had had sufficient time following the November 2023 inspection to address them. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the steps taken were sufficient to secure compliance.[95]In light of these findings, the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to determine the allegations made in relation to Part 5 (premises and accommodation).[96]The Tribunal has taken into account the Appellant’s evidence that further improvements could have been made within a short period. However, the Tribunal finds that, given the persistence of the deficiencies, the manner in which they had been addressed, and the approach taken to compliance, there was insufficient evidence that the Standards would be met and maintained within a reasonable period.[97]The Tribunal further finds that these serious failures to meet the Independent School Standards across a number of areas were of central importance to the safety and education of pupils and had persisted over time.[98]The Tribunal therefore finds that there was insufficient capacity within the leadership and management of the school to secure compliance with the Independent School Standards. In those circumstances, the Tribunal concludes that removal of the school from the register was a proportionate response. Decision[99]The appeal is dismissed. The Respondent’s decision dated 21 July 2025 is confirmed. District Tribunal Judge D Hyland 05 June 2026