Formal Complaint: Quality of Care at Farley Sparsholt

To: Storal Head Office From: Ed & Kirsty Dowding Date: 6 January 2026 Subject: Formal complaint regarding quality of care at Farley Sparsholt

Dear Storal team,

Aurora has been with you for over a year now. We are writing to formally raise concerns about the quality of care she is receiving and to understand what Storal intends to do to address them.

While we appreciate the efforts of individual staff members, there are systemic issues where head office support, resources, and standards are failing both the children and the frontline team.

What’s going well

Aurora is doing well and in many areas we are pleased with her developmental trajectory, especially in movement and agility. Her confidence and social skills have developed wonderfully, and we’re genuinely grateful to the staff who care for her daily. The team works hard under considerable pressure, and it shows in the warmth she feels for them.

Recent incidents

We feel it is important to document recent incidents that illustrate the ongoing concerns raised in this letter.

6 January 2026 (this morning):

• The nursery was not meeting required staff-to-child ratios at drop-off. This was resolved approximately 30-40 minutes later, but it is disruptive and unacceptable.
• No fires were lit in the Bees yurt despite temperatures of minus 4-5°C. It is unclear whether the fire is operational. Children should not be in an unheated yurt in these conditions.

5 January 2026 (yesterday evening):

• Aurora’s boots were on the wrong feet. In minus 4°C weather, this is a circulation and welfare concern. Two-year-olds cannot articulate pain or discomfort effectively; they do not know what “normal” feels like.
• Aurora had two toileting accidents. She has gone for months without a single accident at home or when out and about. She consistently signals her needs and uses the potty independently. The contrast with nursery is stark.

These incidents are not isolated. They reflect systemic issues, most of which cascade from a single root cause.

The core issue: Staffing

The majority of the concerns in this letter stem from one underlying problem: staffing quality, retention, and ratio compliance.

When you have enough well-trained, consistent staff who know the children, most problems either don’t arise or get caught early. When you don’t, everything suffers: toileting support fails, ratios slip, children’s needs get missed, screen time becomes a coping mechanism, and trust erodes.

What we’re seeing

Ratio compliance: The 1:3 ratio for under-twos is the legal minimum, not the gold standard. There’s a big difference between being legally compliant and being legally compliant with high quality staff. We have been concerned that ‘quality ratios’ in Bees have not always been met. The presence of “floating agency staff” does not give us confidence that proper attention is being paid to children versus simply having “numbers of people in the vicinity.”

Ratio staff: When ratio staff are used, they are not allowed to perform the same breadth and depth of function as full-time staff. This results in more pressure on FT staff, and forces them to focus on low-value tasks like changing nappies, rather than delivering developmental experiences

Staff turnover and key-worker churn: In the six months since Aurora moved to Bees, she has been assigned four different key-workers. This churn has been deeply disruptive. The bonds she formed in Marigolds have not been replicated, and the constant changes, compounded by agency staff turnover, have left her unsettled and inadequately supported. We have also noticed that some of the best staff tend to move on. We suspect they find themselves picking up slack and pushing for standards that others are not challenged to meet.

Agency staff briefings: When Aurora has had incidents, the explanation is often that “agency staff had been on duty” and had not been briefed on her support needs. This is not acceptable. Where agency staff are used, effective handover notes or briefings must take place so that care is consistent.

The consequences

Potty training failures: At home, Aurora is fully potty trained. She signals her needs, takes herself to the potty, and with supervision is almost independent. At home, and out and about (including shops, National Trust properties, and cars and trains), she gets the support she needs and does not have accidents. She has gone months without a single accident outside of nursery.

At nursery, she is more often than not sent home with 2+ (up to 6!!) bags of soiled clothing. She has sometimes come home smelling of urine, and there have been occasions where urine infections have been a concern due to irritation, redness, and soreness. This indicates Aurora is not getting timely support when she needs it.

On multiple occasions (three witnessed by Aurora’s mother and one by her father within a single month), we have been at the gate waiting to collect Aurora and witnessed her standing outside the toilet block, clearly saying “wee wee” multiple times, while being overlooked by staff nearby. When we collected her, she was standing in soiled clothes.

We raised these episodes with the nursery manager, Janine. The response was that we “shouldn’t expect 1:1 ratio attention” and that potty training is “a transition where accidents can happen.” Following a formal debrief where the nursery indicated it would put structures in place, the pattern has continued.

We have heard from multiple staff that the accidents are “Aurora’s fault”, that she is “attention seeking” or “too distracted.” This attitude is unacceptable. Our data shows that when certain standout staff members are in charge of Aurora, accidents are minimal or non-existent. When they are not, accidents are frequent. Whilst we accept that behaviours change in different settings, the issue is not 100% our daughter’s fault. It is staffing.

The damage is significant. Trust between Aurora and her carers is being damaged at a sensitive developmental age. If signalling doesn’t get help, she will stop signalling. That is basic conditioning, and it is exactly the wrong lesson.

Screen time as coping: We chose an outdoor forest nursery specifically to avoid screen time as a childcare tool. We have seen use of screens with children. We suspect this happens when staff are stretched. It is disappointing and counter to the ethos we were sold.

What we need to understand

• Why is staffing such an issue?
• What is being done to improve retention so experienced staff stay longer?
• How is Storal investing in recruitment quality, not just filling posts, but finding people who are attentive and engaged?
• Has Storal considered recruiting parents returning to work? They often bring practical insight and tend to stay longer.
• What is the policy on screen time, and what circumstances justify it?

An outdoor setting like Farley Sparsholt arguably demands better ratios than the statutory minimum. Given the structural challenges of the setting (multiple layers, distance to toilet blocks, cold conditions), Storal should be investing in higher-quality care, not stretching to meet minimums.

Operational issues

The following concerns are not directly caused by staffing, but require attention nonetheless.

Heating and cold weather safety

Very frequently, even after an expensive and disruptive refurbishment, no fires were lit in Bees (and other) yurts, despite temperatures of minus 5°C. Children should not be in unheated yurts in these conditions. If the fire is not operational, alternative heating must be provided. If it is operational, it should have been lit before children arrived.

We would like to understand the policy on heating and how this is being implemented.

Nutrition and transparency

We were surprised to find sugar and salt in menus, especially for under-twos. Given current guidance and all of the abundant longitudinal data on the health impacts of early years nutrition, this is inconsistent with best practice. It was further surprising that we had to specifically request Aurora be put on a “no sugar list” when she arrived.

We have repeatedly requested the nutritional content of meals. We understand there is now an in-house chef cooking from scratch. We would very much like to see full ingredient lists and recipes. When Aurora turned two, the nursery asked if she could go back on sugar because catering for preferences was “complicating” the menus. This is just not an acceptable approach to child nutrition.

A full nutritional and ingredient breakdown would empower parents to flag concerns early, and could equally serve parents as a teaching tool for balanced and healthy diets.

Developmental communication

When the nursery teaches children songs, carols, colours, or shapes, we would value knowing which ones and how, so we can reinforce at home rather than stumbling upon them. A simple weekly note (“This week we’re focusing on…”) would help parents complement rather than duplicate efforts. Now that Aurora is more verbal, we would welcome better communication on key lessons being learned.

The broader point

We have now raised concerns repeatedly about staffing, potty training, ratios, screen time, heating, nutrition, and communication. In each case, it has felt like we are pushing for things that should already be standard, not just at this nursery, but across the Storal network. This is exhausting for parents and, we suspect, for frontline staff who bear the brunt of feedback that belongs at HQ level.

None of this is intended as criticism of individual staff members. For the most part, they are doing their best within the system they are given. But Storal has the scale and financial backing to invest in better staffing, better infrastructure, and better processes. That investment would make frontline staff’s lives easier and the parent experience meaningfully better.

You have consolidated these nurseries to create economies of scale. We would like to see those economies exercised in service of better care, not just cost efficiency.

What we expect

We would like a formal response from Storal HQ addressing:

1. What is the staff turnover rate at Farley Sparsholt vs other Storal nurseries, and what is your target?
2. What percentage of shifts in Bees are currently covered by agency staff, and what is the target?
3. Who at HQ is accountable for resolving these issues, and by when will we see a follow-up review?
4. What additional investment is Storal making in Farley Sparsholt in 2026?
5. What are the written policies on screen time and heating, and can we have copies?
6. Can we have the full ingredient list and nutritional breakdown for the current menu, and what is Storal’s policy on sugar and salt for under-twos?
7. Will you commit to a weekly note or email outlining what children are learning, so parents can reinforce at home?

We are happy to discuss any of this further. However, we do expect a substantive response. Our continued enrolment depends on seeing meaningful improvement.

With thanks, Ed, Kirsty & Aurora