Imagine the scene. Eight children, aged from six months to four years, are lying on dirty carpet in a toyless room. They have a blanket over them to sleep, but none are sleeping. Nearby is a steep flight of stairs with no stairgate. There is just one practitioner, who locks them in the room on their own in order to make their food in a rat-infested kitchen.
This is a real-life case, triggered by a complaint and which resulted in an immediate suspension of registration. On the inspection visit, I rang the bell multiple times, and when the staff member eventually opened the door, I explained who I was and that I needed to come in to investigate a complaint. The practitioner went to close the door, but I put my foot in the door as I knew I needed to exercise my right of entry. The practitioner eventually let me in when I showed her a copy of Section 77. I would not have seen the conditions described above had it not been for those legal powers.
It also emerged that the practitioner had no access to the children’s details, which were locked in an office. I asked who had the keys to the office and was told this was the owner/manager, who had been away for more than four weeks. The practitioner also explained that as she had not been paid for three weeks, she did not have any credit on her phone.
As the situation was so serious I stayed until all the children had been collected, and I was able to tell the parents that I would be back the following morning with a suspension notice. While gathering evidence I copied documentation, interviewed the practitioner, examined how children were cared for, took photographs of all the hazards I found, and the lack of play materials.
Later in this case as I was gathering evidence for cancellation, I interviewed ex-members of staff who gave statements about the conditions to which children were exposed. Several ex-members of staff were genuinely frightened of the owner and were very tearful while they explained their role in what had taken place. The owner was also interviewed under caution using a recording device so that the evidence could be used in court.
THE LAW
Failing to allow an inspector to carry out their investigation can be seen as obstruction and is an offence.Section 77 (8) of the Childcare Act 2006 says that someone commits an offence if they intentionally obstruct a person exercising any power under this section of the act, which includes inspecting the premises and taking copies of records.
In the above case, I copied the staff signing-in book to show that on the day of my visit, only one member of staff was present. When the owner returned, I visited to discuss all the concerns and found that the staff signing-in book had been altered, with entries that had not been present before. This could be proven because I had taken copies of the document.
While the above case stands out in my memory, there have been several occasions when I have needed to insist on looking around a daycare setting without waiting for a manager. For example, if a complaint has been made that a setting always runs without meeting ratios, waiting can allow time for practitioners to hide children – this has happened in several cases – or get staff from other settings to cover numbers for the day.
If a practitioner has been told not to let an inspector in or to undertake an investigation, they could be seen as the person committing the obstruction.
CASE STUDY
A child who was being looked after by a childminder had been injured after a kitchen cabinet fell off the wall and glass and crockery smashed. The child went home with several cuts and the parent complained. The childminder had been prosecuted many years ago for failing to allow an inspection to take place. I had attempted to see the childminder on four occasions; each time the door was not answered, although I was sure there was activity inside. On the fifth attempt to visit I telephoned the childminder a few doors away from the premises. She answered the telephone and I explained I needed to see her to discuss a complaint and asked her to open the door. She refused and hung up the phone.
I waited and called again. I could hear the telephone ringing inside but she would no longer answer. I decided to wait. After approximately half an hour the childminder opened the door with a child in a buggy about 18 months old. I stood in front of her to explain again that I needed to investigate the situation. The next thing I knew, she ran at me with the buggy and rammed it into my legs. I explained the obstruction offence, even though I knew she already understood this as she had been prosecuted before, and read her the caution. Eventually I calmed her down and completed the investigation.