Daffodils Nursery v Ofsted: tribunal upholds cancellation of childcare registration over safeguarding failures

The First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) has dismissed an appeal by Daffodils Nursery Limited against Ofsted's decision to cancel its registration as a childcare provider, finding that its owner and nominated individual had presided over what the panel described as a closed safeguarding culture.

In Daffodils Nursery Limited v Ofsted [2026] UKFTT 1115 (HESC), a panel led by Judge S Goodrich heard three days of evidence at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre concerning the company's three settings in the West Midlands. The appeal centred on Ofsted's decision of 1 October 2025 to cancel registration under section 68 of the Childcare Act 2006, following an incident in October 2024 in which a member of staff struck her own child, who was in her care at one of the nurseries.

CCTV footage supplied to Ofsted by a whistleblower showed the staff member striking the back of the child's head with sufficient force to propel her forward. The tribunal found this to be a deliberate assault of significant force, rejecting the characterisation offered by the nominated individual, Mr Ahmed, and the setting's manager, who had both described the incident as a "tap". The panel found that the matter was dealt with entirely internally, with staff agreeing at an informal meeting to suspend the employee rather than notify the local authority designated officer or Ofsted, a decision the tribunal held no reasonable, informed person would have made.

The judgement went on to examine wider concerns identified during Ofsted's subsequent investigation, including an absence of safeguarding notifications since 2019, poor record keeping across all three settings and weak knowledge of escalation procedures among staff. The tribunal also considered allegations that staff had been coached ahead of Ofsted interviews, centring on a WhatsApp message containing prepared questions and answers on safeguarding topics that was sent to staff the day before scheduled interviews. Mr Ahmed's son gave evidence that the message had been intended for his mother and sent to the wider staff group by mistake, an account the panel rejected as implausible.

The tribunal also declined an application by the appellant to withdraw the appeal after evidence had concluded, holding that the public interest in a reasoned determination outweighed any saving in time, particularly given the ongoing relevance of the factual findings to any future application by Mr Ahmed for a waiver of disqualification.

In reaching its decision, the panel rejected proposals put forward by the appellant during the hearing, including a restructured board, the replacement of the nominated individual and an independent 90-day safeguarding recovery plan overseen by a former Ofsted inspector. It found that Mr Ahmed would retain effective control of the business regardless of any formal changes in personnel, and that his evidence throughout the proceedings had lacked candour.

Weighing the impact of cancellation on Mr Ahmed's career and financial interests against the public interest in the safety of children, the tribunal concluded that no set of conditions could adequately address the safeguarding concerns identified. It confirmed Ofsted's decision to cancel the company's registration across the Early Years Register and both parts of the General Childcare Register, and dismissed the appeal.