School vetting failure exposes childcare safeguarding gaps

Published: 30 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A devastating school vetting failure has emerged after a paedophile secured trusted roles within London childcare settings. The case has shaken parents, educators, and safeguarding professionals across the capital. It centres on Vincent Chan, whose access to children spanned years despite supposedly strict checks. The revelations have forced renewed scrutiny of how safeguarding operates in schools and nurseries. They also raise urgent questions about accountability, oversight, and the limits of background screening.

Chan, now 45, admitted a series of sexual offences against children and women at London courts. His crimes occurred while he worked at a primary school and later at a nursery. Investigators say he deliberately sought positions of trust to exploit vulnerable children. The scale of offending only became clear after his arrest in June 2024. Since then, detectives have examined vast quantities of digital material seized from his devices. What they uncovered has horrified officers and families alike.

For more than a decade, Chan moved through institutions responsible for children’s care. From 2007 to 2017, he worked as a teaching assistant at a north London primary school. Later, he became a nursery worker with the Bright Horizons chain in north London. During these periods, he committed offences in broad daylight. Some crimes occurred during nursery naptimes, when toddlers were meant to be safest. The case illustrates how a school vetting failure can have lifelong consequences for victims.

On Thursday, Chan appeared at Highbury magistrates court, where he admitted 30 additional offences. These admissions followed earlier guilty pleas to 26 sexual offences. In total, he has now admitted 56 offences involving children, girls, and women. Prosecutors outlined a disturbing pattern of behaviour. Chan recorded children without their knowledge, targeted them in classrooms, and stored indecent material. His conduct was described by police as shocking in both nature and scale.

The court heard that one video, recorded in June 2011, showed Chan filming a girl from beneath a classroom table. The camera angle was deliberately positioned to capture intimate areas. Sixteen similar images were recovered, all taken inside a school environment. In another incident, video footage showed Chan committing a sexual act alone inside a classroom. These details underline how routine school settings became locations for abuse.

Further admissions related to offences committed at the nursery. Some victims were as young as two years old. Police confirmed Chan sexually assaulted four children on nursery premises during normal working hours. Investigators believe he also worked as a children’s karate instructor, expanding his access to minors. Such findings have intensified concerns about safeguarding gaps across multiple sectors. Each revelation reinforces the sense of systemic school vetting failure.

Beyond his professional roles, Chan’s offending extended into his private life. Police said he placed covert cameras around his home to record people while they changed. Officers also found footage of him sexually assaulting a woman while she slept at his Finchley address. In total, about 25,000 indecent images of children were discovered in his possession. Detectives are still examining material from 69 separate devices, suggesting further victims may yet be identified.

The Metropolitan Police have been clear in their assessment. Det Supt Lewis Basford, leading the investigation, described Chan as dangerous and predatory. He said Chan repeatedly sought roles involving contact with young girls. According to police, these positions allowed him to offend unchecked for years. Basford noted that Chan exploited trust at every opportunity. His actions, officers say, demonstrate a profound abuse of responsibility.

Parents linked to the Bright Horizons nursery have demanded answers from those responsible. In a collective statement, families expressed sickness and anger at the revelations. They said their thoughts remained with all those affected by the new charges. Parents questioned how safeguarding systems failed so completely. They argued that accountability must extend beyond one offender. For many families, the case represents a profound breach of trust.

The parents’ statement highlighted the lasting harm caused by such crimes. They stressed that court proceedings cannot erase trauma experienced by victims and families. Safeguarding, they argued, exists precisely to prevent such abuse. When it fails, confidence in institutions collapses. Their words echo wider public concern that a school vetting failure reflects deeper structural weaknesses.

Safeguarding experts say vetting processes are designed to reduce risk, not eliminate it entirely. Background checks rely on existing records and disclosures. If offences have not been reported, individuals may pass checks unnoticed. However, critics argue that employers must do more than rely on paperwork. Robust supervision, clear reporting cultures, and regular training are essential safeguards. Without them, checks alone may offer false reassurance.

In this case, Chan’s offending history only emerged through digital evidence seized after his arrest. Police continue to review material, suggesting the full scale may never be known. The drawn-out process has added to families’ distress. Each new disclosure reopens wounds and fuels frustration. The case has become a grim example cited in discussions about reforming safeguarding systems.

Chan will be sentenced next month for all offences he has admitted. Legal experts say he is likely to receive a lengthy prison term. A life sentence is considered a realistic prospect, given the number and severity of crimes. While sentencing may bring some closure, many affected families say justice feels incomplete. They want assurances that lessons will be learned.

The case has reignited debate within education and childcare sectors nationwide. Questions are being asked about recruitment practices and ongoing monitoring of staff. Some campaigners call for enhanced information sharing between institutions. Others emphasise the need for stronger whistleblowing protections. The overarching concern remains preventing another school vetting failure of this magnitude.

For policymakers, the challenge lies in balancing trust with vigilance. Schools and nurseries depend on dedicated staff who care deeply about children. Yet this case demonstrates how trust can be manipulated. Rebuilding confidence will require transparency and sustained commitment. Parents want to know that safeguarding is active, not merely procedural.

As investigations continue, attention will remain on institutions as well as individuals. The public expects answers about how Chan was able to offend for so long. The tragedy has left lasting scars on victims and communities. It also serves as a stark reminder that safeguarding must evolve constantly. Without that evolution, the risk of another school vetting failure remains painfully real.

Check our latest news