Prolific sex offender Vincent Chan abused children he was paid to look after

SICKENING child abuse committed in a West Hampstead nursery should have led to a council investigation, families affected by a serial sex offender’s crimes have argued.

Parents of children who suffered at Bright Horizons are now seeking a High Court ruling to force Camden to investigate whether the company breached health and safety laws.

Vincent Chan, 45, was jailed for 18 years in February after being convicted of abusing children he was employed to look after.

Three families have begun separate legal action as they attempt to find out if the childcare provider’s safeguarding systems failed to protect children.

Bright Horizons runs more than 300 nurseries across the country, although this one in Finchley Road has now closed.

Chan had worked there for seven years, and had previously been employed as a martial arts coach and a teaching assistant at schools.

He has so far been convicted of 56 sexual offences – including 20 against children at Bright Horizons.

Some of his victims were as young as two, and police found he had filmed some of the abuse.

He was arrested on his doorstep in Finchley last October when a colleague at the Bright Horizons raised the alarm after he showed a film – a non-sexual video – of the children to them.

In a letter to the Town  Hall, solicitors Leigh Day & Co say they can highlight lengthy and numerous issues and warning signs regarding how the nursery could have stopped Chan’s crimes.

They include staff shortages, complaints from parents and staff about Chan’s behaviour, and Chan’s prolific use of digital devices.

The letter added that under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Camden Council has a responsibility to investigate whether Bright Horizons failed to protect children in its care from serious risks.

Families impacted say Chan’s entire time employed as a nursery teacher must be looked at – and the safeguarding practices should be reviewed in detail.

Their lawyers say the council has moved from claiming an investigation would be “too complex and lengthy”, to a response that it would conflict with a wider safeguarding practice review – and now, that the request falls outside of the Town Hall’s remit altogether.

But the families say Camden must accept its enforcement role, and that the refusal to investigate can be challenged on human rights grounds – stating the children who were abused are entitled to effective scrutiny of alleged systemic failings that may have exposed them to serious risk.

Currently, the law firm is also pursuing a civil claim against Bright Horizons for a breach of contract, stating the nursery’s alleged serial safeguarding failures allowed Chan to commit the crimes and that it amounts to neglect and cruelty on the company’s part.

It added the case had national ramifications as it raises concerns over safeguarding in private nurseries.

In a statement, Leigh Day solicitor Catriona Rubens said: “The families pose a basic public interest question: when serious abuse occurs inside a nursery and a local authority refuses to act, who is responsible for investigating whether the nursery provider failed to protect the children entrusted into its care?”

The families bringing the legal action also released a statement this week. “Our children were supposed to be safe at nursery. Instead, a predator was able to operate in plain sight for seven years.,” it said.

“We feel there were serious safeguarding failures at Bright Hori­zons, and those failures should be investigated by the enforcing body, Camden Council.

“We, as the parents of victims, young children who are some of the most vulnerable people in society, should not have to beg for an investigation like this to be carried out.

“If Camden Council, the Health and Safety Executive and the police will not investigate Bright Horizons, who is responsible for holding nursery operators accountable? Why are parents left to ask that question? This is not only about our families. Every parent who leaves a child at nursery needs to know that, if something goes catastrophically wrong, there is a public authority willing and able to examine whether the nursery operator failed in its duties.”

Ms Rubens added: “The families impacted by Chan’s abuse feel a great deal of concern that he was able to offend un­checked at the nursery for such a prolonged period, during which time a number of troubling behaviours were observed and complained about by both parents and staff.

“It is crucial that Bright Horizons is fully investigated to identify whether the nursery’s systems and operations may have placed the children’s health and safety at risk.  Our view and that of counsel we have instructed is that the law is clear that Camden Council is responsible as the enforcing authority and must undertake this investigation.

“Our clients hope this legal letter will prompt action from the council, and see steps urgently taken to scrutinise whether Bright Horizons has breached health and safety regulations.”

Bright Horizons said this week: “First and foremost, our thoughts remain with the children and families affected by Vincent Chan’s horrific crimes.

“What happened was a profound betrayal of trust by Chan, and we recog­nise the deep and lasting impact this continues to have. We are working with Camden Council and other relevant authorities to support the ongoing Child Safeguarding Practice Review (CSPR). It would not be appropriate for us to comment on any proposed judicial review at this time.”

A Camden Council spokes­person said: “Parents, carers and children are at the heart of everything we do as this Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review progresses. The fact we are participating in this ongoing statutory review, and the matters under consideration, means that we are currently conflicted and cannot begin any investigation into Bright Horizons nursery concerning possible breaches of health and safety legislation.

“We appreciate that this is frustrating and upsetting for parents and carers but we will revisit the issue of conflict once the review has completed. We also consider that this is an exceptional case that meets the criteria for referral to the Health & Safety Executive, as the national regulator. We did this at the earliest opportunity.”