Smiler

Hi Carrieon23 - with respect to parents setting up a nursery, think that a significant amount of time and work (and of course responsibility) is involved. There is a place (called ARC maybe?) somewhere in Southwark where parents took over the running of a nursery that was otherwise going to close: if anyone is seriously up for it, it'd be worth talking to them. Fiona Phillips at Southwark could probably put people in touch. Smartiemax - have PM'd you.

If you can't find anywhere, DVDs (e.g. Davina) are pretty good!

The nursery closes on Friday 28 August at 6pm. For the background, see the other thread on this forum:Thread on Bojangles

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.

Leggings - is so distressing that these are back in fashion, did not have the legs the last time and still don't! Boo hoo. But for those who can get away with it they are great. Good news on the ice-cream parlour, not necessarily compatible with the leggings!

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

One of the freebie magazines (the little one) that comes round lists all activities in it, which is useful.

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.

Hurrah. Whatever happens next you are an inspiration!

Good plan, toast!

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.

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.

We went for a nursery. Have found the care good, but are now having serious problems because the nursery (Bojangles) has gone into liquidation and is being evicted. Stress.

As far as we know, the Forest Hill site (1a Church Rise, SE23 2UD) is still open: we would like to alert parents of children at that nursery, as there are risks for them too, but don't have any means of contacting them at present other than this forum. It isn't clear whether, following the liquidation of Bojangles in June, the new "Fingerprints" company took over both nurseries or whether a third company was set up. Nor is it clear what, if anything, parents have been told (if the communication with us is any indication, it may well be nothing). Nor indeed do we know whether Bojangles / Fingerprints ran/run any other nurseries.

Among the things that it'd be good to establish this evening are: - when and why the church decided to terminate the nursery's lease; and why with only two weeks' notice; - when and why they became concerned about their contract with Bojangles; and why they did not inform parents earlier about these matters; - their detailed proposals about childcare from their premises, including what stage these are at, the nature of the provision, the organisation running it, the stage they have reached with the Council and Ofsted and staffing matters;

Update from Southwark Council. They are investigating the situation with both Bojangles/Fingerprints and the church and seeking to establish the details of both parties' proposals. They won't be sending anyone to the meeting tonight, but have asked for an update tomorrow. They are also considering what they can do to support parents in identifying immediate and longer-term childcare solutions. The Council has not thus far been informed by the church of any plans for a new nursery to take the place of Bojangles on the church premises (and would expect to be informed should the church wish to proceed).

An update. As of 30 August, more than 60 children could be without childcare. No meeting has yet been set up with the directors of Fingerprints (trading as Bojangles), we are pressing for this. They report that they are seeking new premises. They have written to parents: PM me if anyone wants information on this. As you can see from katgod's message above, the church have invited parents to a meeting this evening at 6.30pm. They seemingly plan for another nursery to operate from the space. No news from Southwark Council.

Just wanted to add that the situation is equally awful for the employees of the nursery, who don't deserve this. It is really sad to think of them not looking after the children or having problems themselves because of this terrible situation. They are so caring, warm and dedicated.

Have had a number of private messages about this from parents of children already at the nursery and who have paid a deposit to secure a future place. If any parents want to be copied in, please include your email addresses in your PM, not really feasible to keep in touch via PMs on this forum. Will, however, update this from time to time. Contact details for various people are here in case any of you want to raise the matter and see what they can do. East Dulwich (Lib Dem) Councillors: http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgFindCouncillor.aspx?XXR=0&AC=WARD&WID=12849 Tessa Jowell MP: http://www.tessajowell.net/contact_me Fiona Phillips of Children's Services, Southwark Council Children's services Tel: 020 7525 5000 [email protected]; [email protected] John Smith House 144-152 Walworth Road London SE17 1JL

Laurie, many of us are concerned about the potential closure of Bojangles nursery on Upland Road, where more than 60 local kids aged 1 to 4 attend. We only found out about this today and they will be evicted from the current premises on 30 August. Details elsewhere on this forum.

Jessie, Hopefully there will be info about a meeting when we collect the kids today - may be hard to be taken seriously with a hungry toddler clinging like a monkey! As Mellors said, this is not just a change of name. It would also be helpful for parents to meet the church people from whom the premises are leased, or indeed for them to be at the meeting tomorrow. Mellors - any tips on the role of the administrator? Would it be worth speaking to them? Also, when companies go into liquidation, don't they have any legal responsibility to inform customers? It seems wrong if they don't.