Camden council was warned about paedophile nursery worker years before arrest

A paedophile nursery worker was cleared by an investigation overseen by a local authority three years before he was arrested. In February, Vincent Chan was jailed after pleading guilty to 56 offences, including assault by penetration on three-year-old girls in his care at a Bright Horizons nursery on Finchley Road in north-west London. After his conviction, prosecutors described him as a “prolific sexual predator”. The Guardian can now reveal that Chan was the subject of an earlier safeguarding investigation, carried out by Bright Horizons, with the oversight of Camden council. It followed what were described as “significant concerns” raised with the nursery in 2021 about Chan’s conduct and behaviour by the parent of a young girl, including concerns about what her daughter was saying to her about Chan. Bright Horizons referred the matter to Camden council, which advised the nursery to investigate. Chan was put on duties that involved no contact with children while the investigation by Bright Horizons took place. After it was completed, Chan was cleared to return to his role caring for young children in the nursery. A year later, in 2022, Chan filmed himself sexually abusing three-year-old girls at the Bright Horizons nursery. Chan was first arrested in June 2024, initially on suspicion of child cruelty, after nursery staff discovered videos Chan had filmed of distressed children in his care. After Chan’s devices were searched by police as part of this investigation, they discovered that he was a prolific sexual offender, with tens of thousands of child abuse images on his computer. He had also committed sexual offences in his previous job as a teaching assistant at St Mary’s Church of England primary school in Dollis Park, north London, including upskirting female pupils. In February this year, Chan was sentenced to 18 years in prison. The revelation that Camden council and Bright Horizons were aware of concerns about Chan three years before his arrest, and that there had been an investigation into his behaviour, will raise questions about whether there were earlier opportunities to stop him. It will also raise wider questions about whether existing safeguards for nurseries are adequate. In early 2024, prior to Chan’s arrest, other parents say that they raised concerns with Bright Horizons about Chan’s conduct at work. They say they warned Bright Horizons that their children were telling them that Chan shouted at them, was “angry” and a “bad man”. These parents say these concerns were dismissed. After Chan’s first arrest, the Bright Horizons nursery on Finchley Road closed in June 2025. Nurseries have a responsibility to refer to local authority designated officers (LADOs) when there are concerns that a nursery worker has been accused of harming or posing a risk of harm to children, may be guilty of criminal conduct, or has exhibited behaviour that makes them unsuitable to work with children. Local authorities have the ultimate responsibility for managing allegations raised that relate to adults who work with children. LADOs can recommend that a matter be referred to the police if they believe it meets a criminal threshold. It is understood that the Metropolitan police did not receive a referral in 2021 regarding Chan, and were only notified of the concerns subsequently. After Chan’s sexual offending came to light, Camden council carried out a rapid review of the decision to clear him to return to work after the Bright Horizons investigation. The review concluded in November 2025, and Camden council subsequently commissioned a local child safeguarding practice review, led by an independent reviewer, to examine how Chan was able to abuse children at the Finchley Road nursery, in addition to offences committed in his previous role. The review, which has been pushed back repeatedly, is expected to be published in early 2027 according to Camden council. It is expected to be critical of the safeguarding culture within Bright Horizons. But Camden council has said publicly that it cannot investigate Bright Horizons under health and safety laws because it is conflicted due to its participation in the safeguarding review. Local authorities have the power to prosecute businesses that do not comply with health and safety legislation. In a letter to the parent of a child at the nursery, seen by the Guardian, Camden council said that the purpose of the safeguarding review was “not conducted to hold individuals, organisations, or agencies to account”. The review is not expected to satisfy the parents of Chan’s victims because it is unlikely to apportion blame to executives at Bright Horizons. There has been no explanation of why the review was pushed back from summer 2026, when the independent reviewer was initially expected to submit her report. The council has also rejected a freedom of information request from the Guardian relating to Chan’s employment at the nursery, citing a desire to “manage” the release of information. It is understood that, in addition to the 2021 referral involving Chan, Camden council received other unrelated safeguarding referrals from Bright Horizons between 2017 and 2024, the time Chan worked at the nursery. A spokesperson for Camden council said: “Children deserve the best care in a safe environment and the ongoing independent local child safeguarding review into this case presents a pivotal opportunity to prevent abuse like this from happening again. Our participation in the review is thorough, and we have disclosed all relevant documents and information.“We are ready to receive the review’s recommendations once it is published and take action. We are determined to make a real and tangible impact on safeguarding arrangements for the future.”A spokesperson for Bright Horizons said: “Our thoughts remain with the victims of Chan’s shocking crimes and their families. As the Camden local authority’s child safeguarding practice review is ongoing, we will not be able to comment without the express written authorisation of that committee as we do not wish to prejudice that process. We will respond as soon as we are able, once we have received the committee’s response.”