Families accuse Camden Council of mishandling warning about nursery abuser Vincent Chan
Families of children abused by nursery worker Vincent Chan say Camden Council failed to act on an earlier warning and are demanding answers from Labour figures who led the council. The case has renewed scrutiny of how safeguarding concerns are handled and whether current government measures will prevent similar failures.
A parent raised “significant concerns” about Chan in 2021, and Bright Horizons says it referred the matter to the local authority; the council sent it back for the nursery to address, and Chan was later cleared to return to work. In February, he was jailed for 18 years after admitting sexually assaulting and filming girls in his care from at least 2022. Labour says Georgia Gould, then council leader, was not informed of the concerns; the Government says it has strengthened safeguarding measures, while an independent review is under way.
- Families say Camden Council mishandled a 2021 warning about Vincent Chan.
- Chan was jailed for 18 years after admitting abuse from at least 2022.
- An independent review is examining how the case was handled.
New here? Start with this
Camden Council is the local authority responsible for services in its area, including parts of children’s safeguarding. Nurseries must raise concerns about staff who work with children, while councils and other agencies assess what action is needed.
Vincent Chan worked at a Bright Horizons nursery in Camden. A parent raised concerns in 2021, and the nursery says it referred them to the council; the council sent the matter back to the nursery, and Chan was later allowed to return to work. In February, he was jailed for 18 years after admitting sexually assaulting and filming girls in his care.
The case has prompted questions about how concerns are passed between nurseries and councils, and who is responsible for acting on them. Georgia Gould was Camden Council’s leader at the time; Labour says she was not told about the concerns. An independent review is under way, while the Government says it has strengthened safeguarding measures.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Families can argue that a warning described as significant should have prompted closer scrutiny by the council, rather than being returned to the nursery to handle, especially given the serious harm Chan later caused. They are entitled to clear answers about how the referral was assessed, who knew what, and whether stronger oversight could have prevented further abuse.
The case against
The council and those defending its handling can argue that the available account does not establish that senior political leaders knew of the warning, or that officials could then have foreseen Chan’s later offending. Bright Horizons says it made a referral, and an independent review is under way to establish how responsibility was divided and whether the response complied with the safeguards and information available at the time.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Parents say Labour failed their children by allowing paedophile Vincent Chan to stay at nursery”.