Parents take legal action against Camden Council over refusal to investigate Bright Horizons after nursery abuse scandal

The action comes in circumstances where no public authority has accepted responsibility for investigating whether the nursery operator’s safeguarding systems failed to protect children at the nursery.

In a letter putting the council on legal notice of a potential judicial review claim, three families say Camden Council is under a duty to investigate whether Bright Horizons' safeguarding systems failed to protect children from one of most disturbing childcare abuse cases in recent years.  

The impacted families have highlighted numerous issues regarding operations at the nursery which they say may have resulted in a failure to prevent Chan's abuse. These include staff shortages, complaints from parents and staff about Chan's behaviour, and Chan's prolific use of digital devices.

The families say the law is clear: under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, it is Camden Council’s responsibility to investigate whether Bright Horizons failed to protect children in its care from serious risks to their health and safety. They say correspondence from the Health and Safety Executive supports the position that Camden is the enforcing authority for nursery facilities in a non-domestic premises, which includes Bright Horizons nursery. Camden Council has made clear it will not investigate, which is why the families have started legal action.

Chan, 45, was sentenced in February 2026 to 18 years in custody for 56 sexual offences, including 20 offences against children at Bright Horizons Nursery on Finchley Road, north London. The offences included sexual assault by touching, sexual assault by penetration and indecent image offences.

Chan worked at the Bright Horizons nursery for seven years until 2024. The families say the whole period of his employment at the nursery must now be scrutinised, including the systems that were supposed to protect children throughout that time.

According to the families, Camden Council has shifted its position, initially suggesting an investigation would simply be too complex and lengthy, later claiming to be conflicted in performing this role through their involvement in the Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review investigation being conducted, and now stating the matter falls outside its jurisdiction altogether. The families say those arguments are flawed and that Camden must now accept its enforcement role.

The families also argue that Camden's refusal to investigate is unlawful on human rights grounds, because the children affected were among the most vulnerable members of society and were entitled to effective scrutiny of alleged systemic failings that may have exposed them to serious risk.

A wider group of families has instructed Leigh Day to bring a civil claim against Bright Horizons for breach of contract for the company’s safeguarding failures that permitted Chan’s crimes, including neglect and cruelty.    

Leigh Day points to the Council’s role as the enforcing authority for health and safety in nurseries under Regulation 3 and Schedule 1 of the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998/494, More generally, the circumstances of this case suggest that the health and safety statutory regime is not being used as robustly as it should to investigate potential offences in relation to the safeguarding of children.  

Quote from the families:

"Our children were supposed to be safe at nursery. Instead, a predator was able to operate in plain sight for seven years. 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."

Leigh Day solicitor Catriona Rubens said:

“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.”  

Leigh Day has instructed Danny Friedman KC of Matrix Chambers.  

The families say the case has national significance because it raises unresolved questions about the enforcement of safeguarding duties in private nursery settings.

They say the Care Quality Commission can enforce health and safety legislation in care home settings, and that equivalent local authority powers must be used where nursery safeguarding failures may have placed children at risk.

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 nursey provider failed to protect the children entrusted into its care?