Sana Umar v Ofsted [2026] UKFTT 00959 (HESC)
REPRESENTATION
[1]This has been a remote hearing which was not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was remote via Video. A face to face hearing was not held as it was not practical and nobody requested it. All issues could be determined in a remote hearing. Due to the nature of the hearing (see below) we considered that this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. There were no disconnections through the hearing.LATE EVIDENCE
[2]Both parties made application for the admission of late evidence. There was no objection to this so we allowed these documents to be admitted into evidence.ISSUES IN THE CASE
[3]This is an appeal brought by Mrs Sana Umar. She is a registered childminder. On 12 December 2025 Ofsted served her with a suspension notice initially for a period of 6 weeks. Those notices have been renewed and the Notice that triggers this appeal is dated 22 May 2026. On 11 June 2026 Ofsted issued her with a Notice of intention to cancel her registration.[4]There are a number of allegations made against the Appellant. The most significant of which is that she slapped a child, MJ, causing significant bruising to her cheek. It is further alleged by a third party childminder, in a referral to Ofsted on 4 February 2026, that a child, KO, had told her separately that MJ had been hit by the respondent and that the Appellant “hits the childrens hands”. The initial allegation was investigated by the police and LADO. The police referred the file to the CPS who declined to prosecute. The LADO is said to have substantiated the allegation. A referral has been made to the DBS in May 2026. Ofsted were therefore in a position to conclude their own investigation via a formal interview with the appellant on 5 June 2026.[5]During the course of the safeguarding investigation, MJ was seen by an associate Specialist in Paediatrics who’s opinion was that the marks were consistent with a slap. A second CP medical was carried out on 15 February 2026 this time comparing the previously seen injuries with some toy railway track which the Respondent said had caused the injuries when MJ fell on it. The Doctor discounted this as being the cause.[6]It is the Appellants case that the injuries were caused accidentally by MJ falling onto a toy train track. She strenuously denies having inflicted any injury to MJ and points to the many glowing testimonials to the quality of care that she has provided over the years of registration since 2022. Her case in a nutshell is that the continued suspension is causing her financial and emotional hardship and is both unnecessary and disproportionate. She says that there is no substance to the allegation.THE LAW
[7]Section 69(1) of the Childcare Act 2006 provides for regulations to be made dealing with the suspension of the registered provider’s registration. The section also provides that the regulations must include a right of appeal to the Tribunal.[8]Under the Childcare (Early Years and General Childcare Registers) (Common Provisions) Regulations 2008 when deciding whether to suspend a childminder the test set out in regulation 9 is: “That the Chief Inspector reasonably believes that the continued provision of childcare by the registered person to any child may expose such a child to a risk of harm”. “Harm” is defined in regulation 13 as having the same definition as in section 31(9) of the Children Act 1989: “ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another”.[9]Ofsted v GM and WM [2009] UKUT 89established that on an Appeal under Regulation 12 “The First-tier Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Chief Inspector and so, in relation to Regulation 9, the question for the First- tier Tribunal is whether, at the date of its decision, it reasonably believes that the continued provision of childcare by the Registered Person to any child may expose such a child to a risk of harm”. “We stress that the exercise of the judgment required by regulation 9 will turn very much on the facts of a particular case. If Ofsted wishes to resist an appeal against a suspension on the ground that further investigations need to be carried out, it needs to make it clear to the First-tier Tribunal what those investigations are and what steps it might wish to take depending on the outcome of the investigations. It may well be, for instance, that the fact that a child has suffered a non-accidental injury that may have been caused by a childminder will prompt a detailed examination of the childminder's records and interviews with other parents, conducted by Ofsted itself after the police have released any records they have seized and said they will not be interviewing such witnesses themselves. If that be the case, Ofsted should explain that to the tribunal, because the tribunal must consider whether any continuation of the suspension has a clear purpose and therefore is capable of being proportionate having regard to the adverse consequences not only for the childminder but also for the children being cared for and their parents.”[10]In this case Ofsted accept that they have in fact completed their enquiries and accordingly the case sits under Reg 10(3)(b).[11]In her skeleton argument counsel for the Appellant points us to Regulation 10(3) Childcare (Early Years and General Childcare Registers) (Common Provisions) Regulations 2008 Regulation 10(3) is of critical importance to this appeal. It provides as follows: (3). Where, however, it is not reasonably practicable (for reasons beyond the control of the Chief Inspector)— (a). to complete any investigation into the grounds for the Chief Inspector’s belief referred to in regulation 9, or (b). for any necessary steps to be taken to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm referred to in regulation 9, within a period of 12 weeks, the period of suspension may continue until the end of the investigation referred to in sub- paragraph (a), or until the steps referred to in sub-paragraph (b) have been taken. After 12 weeks, a suspension can only be extended again where it is not reasonably practicable for the Respondent, for reasons beyond its control, to either complete any investigation into the grounds for its belief under regulation 9 or for any necessary steps to be taken to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm referred to in regulation 9. Even then, the suspension may only continue until the end of the investigation, or until the steps have been taken. (Our emphasis) ANALYSIS[12]We had before us a bundle running to 192 pages and 2 very comprehensive and extremely helpful skeleton arguments. The bundle including witness statements from the Early Years inspectors, Ms Umar and her son and Assistant Mr Khan. The bundle very clearly and helpfully sets out the history of this matter and its evolution. and the position taken by the Appellant throughout. As well as considering the evidence and hearing submissions we also heard evidence from both Ms Umar and Mr Khan.[13]In her evidence Ms Umar was clear that she did not cause any injury, that the injuries she observed were less severe than on the photographs provided by mother and had been caused by a fall onto a toy railway track. She did not see the accident but Mr Khan did in his “peripheral vision”. She hypothesised that the allegation made against her was vindictive and manufactured. She further speculated that comments made by KO had been fed to him by adults with their own agenda. Any discrepancies on the recording of the position of the marks was purely accidental on her part.[14]A person who is suspended under any regulatory framework is often left in a limbo situation where they cannot properly contest allegations made against them. In many professional regulatory processes suspension can last for many months or years. In this situation however there are clear statutory guidelines that have to be followed. Suspension can only last 12 weeks unless reg 10 (3) (a) or (b) is satisfied. We are conscious that the Cancellation process has now begun which gives the Appellant an opportunity to fully challenge the allegations against her.[15]In her closing submissions Ms Agyekum skilfully pointed out what she said were significant discrepancies in the medical reports. She was however unable to gainsay the fact that there was no countervailing medical evidence before the Tribunal. She argued that the Reg 9 ground was not satisfied. If she was wrong in this then in the light of the impact upon the Appellant, her clients and the glowing testimonials received continuing suspension was unnecessary and disproportionate.[16]With the greatest of respect to Ms Agyekum her submissions do not match the reality of the case before us. We are not required to make findings of fact. Our task is to firstly satisfy ourselves that we reasonably believe that the continued provision of childcare by the registered person to any child may expose such a child to a risk of harm. As has been established through case law this is a low test. It is clearly made out in this case, given the medical evidence, the photographs we saw of the injuries and the comments made by KO. The evidence of Ms Umar did not assist her but rather raised additional concerns relating to allegations of malicious intent against the mother of MJ[17]Having clearly established that the threshold of Regulation 9 is crossed we put ourselves in the shoes of the regulator to establish (in the terms of Reg 10(3)(b) ) that it is not reasonably practicable for reasons beyond the control of the Chief Inspector for any necessary steps to be taken to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. In this case the risk of harm is of physical abuse. The allegations of this are serious and are supported by medical evidence and are backed by a third party disclosure by another child. This is a risk that no sensible person could ignore, it goes to the very root of safeguarding. A clear prima facie case is made out. No measure short of suspension pending a final determination would be sufficient to provide safeguards.[18]It is further argued on behalf of the appellant that the use of suspension is neither necessary or proportionate. When dealing with serious allegations of physical abuse it is patently both necessary and proportionate to err on the side of caution to ensure that the risk of harm to other children is eliminated pending any determination of the facts. DECISION22. Judge Ian Robertson23. First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) Dated: 26 June 2026