Bojangles (Upland Road) to be kicked out of premises in two weeks time!

[Scoobies]

Thanks for all of the hard work and information sharing. It seems that we are moving forward on an informed basis. I agree with comments that the meeting needs to remain calm and productive. There is clearly fault on both sides, the church for putting parents in this situation. There justification of a debt to HMRC risking their charity status is woolly at least. My view is that they have seen a financial opportunity in running a nursery.

Bojangles - have clearly been trying to hide the liquidation and need to admit that they made no efforts to tell parents before any trust can be re-established with them.

We have spoken to a couple of the nursery nurses. Their view is that they are going to stay with Bojangles and will not move under the church. They are very happy with their current management team and will follow them. This leaves us in a difficult situation, as much as my anger with the church and Bojangles disturbs me I want to provide consistency of care for my son. I want him to stay with the carers and children that he knows. My view is that in the meantime I am forced to look for other options which I hope I will not have to take. I understand MightyMouse's post and if my son was not already settled and happy with his carers and peers I would be out of there like a shot.

Going forward if Fingerprints to maintain a business I think that as parents we should insist that there is at least a couple of parent repesentatives who attend all director meetings, have access to financial accounts and can feedback agreed information to parents. They should be bound by confidentiality to the business but release all information that parents should rightfully expect to be told, like a liquidation. I hope that Bojangles management team have learned that secrecy and subterfuge generally come back and bite you.

Anyone have any information about other childcare options. Having looked at most of the other nursery's in ED there are not many that take children under 2.... eeek.

[Smiler]

Completely agree that it would be lovely to keep the children with the staff "on-the-ground" in the nursery; but there are all kinds of issues about leadership, governance and financial management of Fingerprints. Also, will it have any money in its accounts to pay staff and repay deposits etc. after 30 August?

Am no expert, but suspect that in a situation like this, professional, external legal and financial advice would be necessary.

Southwark Council should, at least, be able to help parents who decide not to continue with either Fingerprints or any church provision with finding other childcare options.

[Smiler]

There was a meeting this evening at the New Life Assembly Church about the situation at the nursery. It was attended by trustees and other representatives of the church, parents of children at the nursery (and due to start), Cllr Jonathan Mitchell, and the Directors of what was Bojangles Nursery School Limited (company no. 03637045, Ofsted 107432) and of Fingerprints (Dulwich) Limited (06887467).

This is my interpretation of what occurred, not a formal minute of the meeting.

The church, who had called and were chairing the meeting, stated that the now liquidated company, Bojangles, had had a contract with the church to use the premises for a nursery. In July, the church became aware that the company had changed its name, and requested information and documentation from the company directors. This was not provided. The church then discovered that the company had been liquidated and had been in significant debt (though no monies were owing to the church). The company directors had not informed them of this. By going into liquidation, Bojangles had invalidated its lease.

The church, having taken advice from their lawyers and the Charity Commission, had serious concerns about the legitimacy to operate and provide childcare of the new organisation (Fingerprints), for example with respect to its financial position and Ofsted registration. It also had concerns about potential risks for the children cared for on the premises, the lack of openness on the part of company directors, and for the church itself as an organisation, for example with respect to charitable status and health and safety responsibilities.

The church therefore decided to give notice to the new organisation to vacate the premises. They had not taken this decision lightly. They hoped that it would be possible for a different organisation, with sound Ofsted and legal status, to run a nursery from the premises. They did not have a particular organisation or individuals in mind. They hoped to discuss possibilities with Southwark Council.

Parents pressed the church on whether they would be willing to work with the new "Footprints" organisation. From the church's point of view, there had been an irreconcilable breakdown in the relationship and they could not trust the new company. Parents then asked whether the church would be willing to extend the notice period, for example for three months, to provide more time for a solution to be found. The church did not think that this was possible for legal reasons.

Cllr Jonathan Mitchell, Southwark, said that Mike Smith, Deputy Director of Children's Services, would investigate the situation and seeking to establish whether a suitable solution could be found so that a nursery could operate from the current site. He emphasised that any organisation running the nursery - and its leadership - would need to be fully suitable and registered with Ofsted. The Council had a legal duty to provide education for 3 and 4 year olds and if no solution was found at the church site, would help parents to find alternative provision. The Council wanted to talk to all parents involved and would try to help. It would be helpful if the Council had contact details for parents.

There was uncertainty about whether or not the new organisation (Fingerprints) was registered with Ofsted. It was suggested that Southwark Council should be asked to investigate this point.

A man who said he was "Director of Bojangles" (the liquidated company), who did not give his name, suggested that the new organisation should be allowed to continue to run the nursery from its current premises using a "licence to occupy" arrangement. The church re-iterated that they could not work with the new organisation for the reasons above. There was clearly bad feeling between the director(s) and the church.

A parent who had spoken to staff reported that staff employed at the nursery wished to continue to look after the children on the current premises. They would not wish to work for the church, should the church directly provide childcare services. Parents were concerned for the job security of the staff: our concerns relate to the leadership of the operation, not the employees running the Mighty Oaks, Little Acorns and Baby Buds areas.

Parents emphasised to the church the difficulties and distress that the two-week notice period was causing. Nonetheless, we acknowledged and shared their concerns about the actions of the directors of Bojangles/Fingerprints. There had been a worrying lack of transparency. Full information was needed about both the liquidation and associated circumstances and the new company (including its legal basis, Ofsted registration and financial position). There would be a meeting on Friday between parents, employees and directors of Bojangles where these matters would be discussed. The directors had not thus far been open and needed to provide significantly more information and immediate access to documentation. Parents would also be looking to Southwark to provide advice on the legitimacy of the new organisation.

After further discussion of these matters, the meeting was brought to a close.

[180176]

Many thanks, I also attended last night and this is an excellent summation. I will not be able to attend the meeting this evening unfortunately but any update would be gratefully received.

[wonderwoman]

Hi, my son used to be at Bojangles, left last November. We were never that happy with Bojangles especially the way it was run and how they dealt with situations but kept our son there as he seemed to enjoy it and made friends. To be honest when I heard about the problems it didn't suprise me at all. Myself and other parents experienced many problems over the years with them. Often invoicing problems were blamed on Southwark not working out the MFE properly, delays due to finance software problems. When we gave them notice that my son was leaving they did not return our deposit and it took over 2 months or so to get it back (which I later heard was also what other parents experienced). In the end my husband had to go down to the nursery several times (even then the directors were giving excuses for delays and blaming each other!). He had to literally demand for the deposit back. I later emailed one of the parents reps and raised concerns that there may be financial problems with Bojangles given what had happened, and asked for her to fore warn the other parents this may happen to them too. So really it seems like the meltdown was happening a long time before it was announced and they were obviously trying to hide the problems (as with other companies under the same circumstances would). I feel sorry for you all, and I know it's not much help knowing this. Looking back I should have moved my son a long time ago and if faced with the current set of circumstances I would be very hesitant to return to the nursery even if they changed the company name.

[Smiler]

There was a meeting this evening in the nursery, attended by parents of children at the nursery (and due to start), Mrs Winsom Narramore and Ms Sonia Adams, and staff of the nursery.

This is my notes of what occurred, not a formal minute of the meeting.

Points made by Ms Adams and Mrs Narramore

1. Ms Adams and Mrs Narramore and others had been directors of Bojangles (now liquidated). Sonia Adams was sole director of a new company, Fingerprints, which was now operating the nursery at the church. The shareholders of the new company were Ms Adams, Ms Narramore and two others, who they did not name. Mrs Narramore was additionally an employee of the company and the person to be named on the Ofsted registration.

2. A second new company called Little Fingerprints had been set up. The Forest Hill nursery was being run by Little Fingerprints.

3. Bojangles nursery had been established ten years ago in the church. At that time, the directors had a good relationship with the Pastor of the church. The nursery had gradually expanded, but capacity was only fully filled in December 2008.

4. Income from fees was never sufficient to cover investment in infrastructure (e.g. toys, furniture) and running costs (e.g. salaries for staff) and the company gradually built up a large tax liability to HMRC.

5. In January 2009, the company was advised by HMRC that it could be closed down due to the tax liability. The directors hoped that because the nursery was now full and there was more income, higher payments to HMRC each month may satisfy the Revenue Officers. It later, however, became clear that the only options were to be closed down by HMRC with immediate effect; or to go into voluntary liquidation and set up new companies, and keep operating. They were advised (by whom they did not say) to do the latter.

6. When asked why they did not inform parents and the church of the liquidation in June, when the statement of affairs was filed, the ladies said that a memorandum had been written to parents about restructuring, but for some reason this had not been circulated. They had assumed that it was the administrator's role to formally inform the church, but Mrs Narramore did speak to the church about the matter. They acknowledged that the communication had been poor, apologised, and said that there had been no deliberate deceit.

7. At present there were around 55 children at the nursery.

8. Parents' deposits had not been lost as part of the liquidation; these had been held in a separate bank account and would be returned to parents when children left the nursery.

9. Ofsted registration of the new companies was OK. Hard copies of an email from Ofsted were circulated (I didn't get a copy of this). Registration could, however, be affected by a change of premises or shutdown in the provision of the service.

10. The new companies had adequate insurance cover. The insurance certificate was in the name of the liquidated company, but still covered the new company. When asked whether the insurance company had been informed of the liquidation and establishment of new companies, Ms Adams said that she could not remember.

11. The new companies were dependent on income from parents. If parents did not pay fees and continue to use the services, they would fold.

12. In total, the new company Fingerprints employed around 17 staff, including three on maternity leave. Employees had transferred to the new companies under TUPE. Employment contracts were in place for most staff, though a few were on temporary contracts.

13. Ms Adams, Mrs Narramore and colleagues would be meeting Mike Smith, Deputy Director of Children's Services, Southwark Council on Monday 24 August.

14. Ms Adams and Mrs Narramore were seeking new premises from which to operate. Two possible premises in East Dulwich were near Goose Green / Oglander Road and Copplestone Road. It would not be possible to have new premises up and running before the nursery at the church closed down.

15. After 30 August, the church would no longer allow the company to operate from its premises.

16. There were spaces for children at the nursery at Forest Hill (owned by the other new company, Little Fingerprints). A letter was circulated about this, which said that there were 10 or so spaces for children aged 3-5, with possible availability for up to ten children aged 2-3. Definite numbers would be available on Monday, when the manager returned from leave. Any spaces made available to children from East Dulwich would be offered in the first instance until December 2009, giving parents time to seek alternative childcare, and / or for the new company to find a suitable space to which to relocate.

Parents requested:

- evidence of adequate insurance cover for the new companies

- further information about how parents' deposits had been separated from the liquidation and assurances in writing that parent deposits would be returned. One of the concerns here was that HMRC could continue to pursue the new companies for money.

Discussion of potential ways forward

Some parents wanted to explore with the church whether it could allow the new company to continue to operate from the premises for a temporary, agreed period after 30 August, to provide more time for new premises to be identified, after which the service would move. Mrs Narramore and Ms Adams said that this would be helpful.

Associated with this, it was suggested that the corporate governance of the new company should be improved, for example to provide for greater parental involvement and financial transparency.

An alternative suggestion was for parents to set up an organisation to run the nursery, which could perhaps retain the services of Mrs Narramore and Ms Adams. Mrs Narramore and Ms Adams said that they would be happy to consider any such proposals.

Other parents did not want any solution involving the new company or Mrs Narramore, Ms Adams or any other individuals involved in the decision to liquidate and establish two new companies.

Next steps

Parents and the new company would be (separately) meeting Mike Smith of Southwark Council on Monday 24 August.

After that, perhaps on Tuesday 25 August, those parents who wished to continue to explore potential ways forward with the new company would meet Mrs Narramore and Ms Adams again.

[macroban]

Puzzled.

Staff were TUPE'd in June 2009 but didn't know about it?

[Coach Beth]

Thank you so much Smiler for all the work you are doing - and for providing such a detailed report. Although my son is leaving Bojangles to go to school, I am happy to support parents in whatever option they decide to go with.

Coach Beth (Sam's Mum)

[Smiler]

I should add that I think all were agreed that if there were any way for the nursery to remain open at the current site for any longer after 30 August, that would really help.

[Smiler]

Update: Bojangles still seems likely to close this Friday.

Parents met the council last night. Parents and the council have tried to mediate between the nursery management and the church to seek a temporary extension to allow the nursery to remain on-site for a few more weeks, but this has not proved possible so far and is not looking hopeful.

The council have circulated list of nurseries with spaces available (none of these are local) and the number of the service that provides lists of childminders. Bojangles/Fingerprints management say that there are some spaces at the Forest Hill "sister nursery" and that some staff from the East Dulwich site will be transferring.

It is unclear whether or not the Bojangles/Fingerprints management intend to offer childcare from another site in East Dulwich.

Nursery management say that they will return parents' deposits.

[Jessie]

Thanks for this, Smiler. Have they given any details re. the return of deposits? I knew nothing about last night's meeting. Though my son goes to school in Sept and would have been leaving Bojangles next week anyway, I find this really sad and empathise with the other parents, and of course the children.

[Smiler]

Jessie, they have been giving cheques to parents who have asked for their deposits back.

[Smiler]

Text of an email to parents from Mike Smith of Southwark Council, 25th August 2009

"Dear Parent/Carer,

Many thanks for attending the meeting last night to discuss the implications of the probable closure of Bojangles Nursery in Upland Road. I am sending this note to confirm the current position.

As I explained at last night's meeting, there appears to have been a breakdown in trust between the trustees of the New Life Assembly Church and the directors of Fingerprints Ltd trading as Bojangles Nursery. It is not part of the council's responsibility to investigate this situation and we certainly cannot take sides in the dispute. The only people who can resolve the situation one way or another are the two parties.

I explained last night that I could not see any way that the relationship could be repaired and I remain of that view. I did undertake to discuss with both parties the potential for the nursery to remain open for an extended notice period to allow time for you to arrange alternative provision. I can confirm that there is a willingness to explore every avenue to minimise the impact on parents and children of the closure. At present the trustees of the church are in discussions with their lawyers seeking advice as to what can be done. In the meantime, we are continuing to explore what the council can do to help on a temporary basis.

A consequence of the above is that you will need to make arrangements for your child(ren) to attend alternative provision sooner rather than later and at last night's meeting we provided details of other nursery providers in the area with vacancies. We can also help you explore childminders. If you need support in finding alternative provision, you can contact our family information service on 0800 013 0639 or you can email [email protected].

Should there be any further update we will be in touch."

[Smiler]

An email today to parents (from [email protected]) confirms that the nursery will close this Friday, 28 August, at 6pm.

Parents whose children will not be moving to the nursery in Forest Hill have been asked to get in touch with bank details to enable the return of deposits.

Sad.

[Adam]

We called the liquidators today and were told that we would very likely lose our entire deposit (one month's fees - ?867). Apparently deposits were not been held in a separate account as stated at the meeting Smiler minuted above and have been spent. The liquidators said the company had no real assets to claim against.

Thanks to Smiler for the original post - we have not even been notified by the nursery of the closure (our daighter was due to start in 5 weeks) and if it had not been for you we would have had little or no chance to make any alternative plans.

I would certainly not trust these company directors again and will not be sending my daughter to their new nursery - they took our deposit in late January when it already looked like the company was unable to meet its debts which looks very much like wrongful trading.

[sunbob]

Thank you very much everyone who has kept this thread updated so thoroughly. I had made a future booking for my child at Bojangles, so only discovered what was happening through this thread. Yesterday I went down there and they just prepared and gave me my deposit cheque without even having to even ask. Good luck to everyone now looking for alternate child care.

[Smiler]

Thanks Sunbob: yes, one of our concerns is that parents who have paid a deposit but whose children have not yet started - and indeed parents of children at Bojangles in Forest Hill - may not have been made aware of what has been going on.

Let's hope that the cheques clear.

[Citrovie]

My daughter was also due to start in a few weeks time and I also found out through the forum. Would still not have have known about it otherwise!

I called Bojangles and they gave me a cheque for the amount I had paid in advance for the induction week and the first month of attendance. The cheque was postdated by one day so I can cash it today. The deposit cheque however was postdated 3rd September - has anyone received a postdated deposit cheque and been able to cash it the week after? I don't fully trust things until I have the money back in my bank account even though I understand that they may need to transfer the money from their "deposits account" to their current account first...

[Nickc]

Hmm. I also have a postdated cheque, though mine is a day before yours. Fingers crossed it clears, though something does not feel right.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

since 1992 post dated cheques can be paid on the first presentation. Stick it in the bank straight away!

[Citrovie]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> since 1992 post dated cheques can be paid on the

> first presentation. Stick it in the bank straight

> away!

Should have known that and done it - will do it first thing on Tuesday. Thanks!

[sunbob]

Just to let you know that my cheque cleared.

[Jessie]

Yep, mine too - phew

[smartiemax]

Smiler, I am a parent at Bojangles at Forest Hill and wanted to establish contact you so that we also have a view with what is happening. We were only told the basics - that E.Dulwich Bojangles was given 2 weeks notice and that the Forest Hill branch was to accomodate more children. Further assurance was given that the carer:child ratio would be within required limits.

However, this has all been very uneasy reading. We were not made aware of any meetings that have been held with the new owners, council, church etc. Happy to share further info if you want to PM me. I can also connect with other parents as needed.

Thanks.

[laura-ann21]

Hi

i had the same sorts of problems while my little boy attended the nursery. Finances seemed very disorganised and they just plucked figures from the sir when telling us we owed them alot of money when withdrawing our son. completely untrue.

I am sorry to all the kids and parents that this nursery has taken so many people for a ride. They put the kids at risk not having registered the new company with ofsted and gaining insurance. There is no excuse for their behaviour.

I am not surprised the nursery has had to close, this was bound to happen at some point, the managers/directors did not seem to know what they were doing.