Secondary School mixed sex changing rooms complaint: Update from school (again)

[TangenitalContrivences]

Hello everyone - Have just received a further update from my daughters (14) secondary school (Brighton) regarding my complaint - which is at stage 2 - go to governors complaint, and my further email to the school asking them to comply with the EHRC interim guidance.

I'll copy both responses below, redacted.

I would very, very much appreciate specific feedback to include in my responses to the school, it's been people here (and elsewhere) who have helped me put together really powerful letters that have clearly rattled the school.

However - there is still a male in the female changing spaces at this school. Therefore it is mixed sex.

(link to the last discussion if you want context https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5309038-secondary-school-complaint-about-mixed-sex-changing-rooms-update-school-response-and-request-for-help-writing-the-escalated-complaint-to-governors )

@thenoisiesttermagant yes state school. a very very large one.

Very keen on getting the insurers detail. I will FOI them if I have to.

(BTW aren't all Termagants noisy little chittering buggers? :D )

They need to stop taking legal advice from Stonewall because this is just plain wrong.

It's great that you've got SSA on here offering support. Hopefully there is a legal pathway through this which can move quickly, as it's mad that the school has said that it will delay following the law.

Regarding the DfE and Ofsted, it's definitely worth an escalation so that there is a record of what is happening but a couple of things to bear in mind:

DfE: their remit is very narrow. They will investigate to make sure that a school has followed its complaints process. Sadly, they have no interest in the content of the complaint... including when it relates to safeguarding or the school not following the law 🤦‍♀️ So unfortunately it may stall where they ask you to continue with the complaint process and raise a new complaint with them if it is not followed. That said, with a bit of persuasion, they may consider this to be an unreasonable delay within the school's process (given there is no clear reason why a school would choose not to follow the current law) and follow up on it through this lens.

Ofsted: their remit is also very narrow. If you contact them, I would suggest that you specifically ask them to conduct an emergency inspection because the school is a) not following the law under the Equality Act 2010 regarding toilets and changing rooms and b) this is a safeguarding risk to all children in the school, especially girls. Again, there seems to be limited interest in the nature of the issues raised beyond this. But it would be great if they did an inspection which focuses on the points that you have raised as they would then produce a public report on it.

⬆️

Just seen this (I had started typing my comment above ages ago.. and only just hit send).

my response to the chair of governors trying to delay my stage 2 complaint:

Dear xxxx,

Thank you for your recent email regarding the scheduling of my Stage 2 complaint hearing.

While I appreciate your intention to approach the matter with care, I must respectfully object to the decision to delay consideration of my formal complaint until after the publication of the final EHRC Code of Practice.

1. Supreme Court Ruling Is Settled Law
As you are aware, the recent UK Supreme Court ruling has clarified — definitively — that the terms “sex”, “man”, and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. This ruling is not awaiting interpretation, nor dependent on the future EHRC Code. It is binding law and immediately applicable to all schools. This clarification alone requires urgent policy and practice review in all single-sex contexts — including school changing rooms.

2. EHRC Interim Guidance Is Already In Force
The EHRC’s interim update (April 2025) was published specifically to guide institutions in the practical application of this ruling while the formal Code of Practice is revised. It states unambiguously:

“Pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls’ toilet or changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted to use the boys’ toilet or changing facilities.”

There is no ambiguity here. The school is already aware of this guidance and must comply with it now. The suggestion that legal clarity is pending is misleading and inappropriate in the context of safeguarding.

3. Safeguarding Cannot Be Deferred
Safeguarding obligations under KCSIE 2024, the Education Act 2002, and the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 require action without delay when the welfare of children may be at risk. My complaint raises concerns about:

• The presence of male pupils in female changing spaces.
• The failure to guarantee single-sex privacy.
• The use of “case-by-case” exceptions that expose pupils — male and female — to increased risk.

These are not theoretical matters. Delaying a safeguarding response exposes students to avoidable risk and the school to potential liability. The duty to act in the best interests of all pupils is ongoing — and cannot be paused for procedural convenience.

4. Equality Act 2010 Already Applies
The EHRC Code of Practice is a helpful aid, but the Equality Act 2010 is already law. The school is legally required to:

• Provide separate facilities for male and female pupils over 11.
• Prevent indirect discrimination on the basis of sex or religion.
• Uphold the privacy, dignity, and safety of all students — including females.

5. Insurer Notification Request
In light of the school’s stated intention to delay legal compliance, I request that you immediately confirm:

• The name of the school’s insurer, and
• Whether they have been formally notified that the school is delaying implementation of the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC’s interim guidance.

It is my understanding that, in the event of a safeguarding incident, failure to follow statutory guidance could result in withdrawal of indemnity. I encourage you to seek legal advice and clarify this matter urgently.

6. Accessibility Concerns and Complaint Continuity
I must also highlight again that, as a neurodivergent complainant, delays to this process create additional cognitive and emotional pressure. My request for written, point-by-point responses to the 13 issues raised is a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010, and should not be impacted by this deferral attempt.

To be absolutely clear: my formal complaint is active, and must continue to be processed under your existing complaints policy. The issues raised remain urgent and legally grounded. This interim update from the EHRC adds weight — but does not pause your responsibility to act.

7. Governance and Transparency
Given the gravity of the situation, I again respectfully request that this correspondence is immediately circulated to:

• The Headteacher
• The Chair of Governors
• The Vice Chair of Governors
• The Safeguarding Governor
• And the full Governing Body

These individuals are collectively accountable for the school’s safeguarding decisions, legal compliance, and policy implementation. They must be fully informed of the current position, the legal context, and the serious concerns I have raised.

8. A Direct Question of Safeguarding Values
Finally, may I ask for a clear written answer to the following:

Does the Governing Body accept that female pupils at xxxx School have the right to single-sex spaces, privacy, and dignity?

Does it accept that delaying action in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling and EHRC interim guidance places that right — and the school’s legal standing — in jeopardy?

I appreciate your continued engagement and your role in facilitating the complaints process. However, I must insist that no delay is appropriate, and that my complaint continues to be processed in accordance with the law and the school’s own policies.

Kind regards,
xxx

Damn, @TangenitalContrivences, please remind me not to get on your bad side. That is a hell
of a letter.

I hope it puts a fire under someone!

I have nothing to contribute other than praise for your professional and very clear letter.

That is an excellent letter @TangenitalContrivences that you've just updated; it's so clear I cannot understand how you could be any clearer.

Bloody amazing letter OP 👏👏👏
I second @TwoLoonsAndASprout fear and awe!

OK - and here is my response to the Heads email - remember that was an additional email I sent to them, after the EHRC Interim Guidance was published, saying they had to act immediately whatever happened:

Dear Mr xxxx,

Thank you for your response to my email.

I must be absolutely clear that your reply does not reflect the legal obligations now placed upon the school as a result of the Supreme Court’s binding interpretation of the Equality Act 2010. The law is no longer in doubt, and your interpretation of the EHRC’s role is deeply flawed.

You wrote:

“The school considers it reasonable and appropriate to wait for the promised update to the EHRC Code of Practice which should be in place within the next two months.”

This position is not legally sustainable. The UK Supreme Court ruling is now binding law. The forthcoming Code of Practice may expand on that ruling, but it cannot and will not change the law. The judgment has already clarified that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex. The EHRC’s interim update is a direct explanation of how that legal interpretation applies in practice, and schools are expected to follow it immediately.

You also wrote:

“It is important to be clear about the status of the publication from the EHRC; it is an update and does not purport to be formal guidance. It does not therefore have binding effect…”

This is an incorrect and misleading statement. The binding effect comes from the Supreme Court. The EHRC is the statutory authority on equality law in the UK and is explicitly tasked with interpreting and advising on compliance. The interim update accurately reflects what the law now requires — not in the future, but now.

To reiterate: delaying compliance is not a lawful option. There is no justification for continuing a policy that permits biological males to use female-only facilities or vice versa, as this now clearly violates the Equality Act. If you are continuing with a “case-by-case” approach, the school is knowingly breaching both the law and your safeguarding duties.

I therefore now require written confirmation that:

1. The school is currently complying in full with the Supreme Court ruling and the Equality Act as interpreted therein.
2. No biological male is permitted access to any female-designated toilets, changing rooms, showers or sleeping arrangements — and vice versa.
3. The “case-by-case” policy has been withdrawn with immediate effect and replaced with a clear policy based on biological sex, in line with legal requirements.
4. Your insurers have been formally notified that the school has been operating a non-compliant policy and that you are now acting to remedy this in light of binding legal clarification.
5. This email has been shared with the Chair of Governors, the Designated Safeguarding Lead, and all relevant safeguarding personnel.

I also request disclosure of any risk assessments that have been conducted to justify the school’s current policy position and whether these were signed off by governors.

As previously stated, this issue is distinct from my Stage 2 complaint, which must proceed without delay. This is a live safeguarding and legal compliance matter that must be addressed immediately by the school leadership.

Should you decline to provide any of the information I have requested above — including relevant risk assessments, policy documents, and insurance notifications — I reserve the right to pursue disclosure via a formal Freedom of Information request. However, I would hope the school will choose to act transparently and in the public interest by providing this information willingly and without delay.

I look forward to your urgent response.

Yours sincerely,
xxx
Father of two pupils at xxxx School

You're very kind thank you. I am sorry to, ironically, muscle into a women's space. However there is nowhere better on the internet to get great advice about all of this!

Fantastic letter @TangenitalContrivences!

I would write to the Daily Mail - they'd no doubt enjoy writing an article about the school.

These letters are only as good as they are because I genuinely have got great feedback from everyone here as you can see. I await the schools response eagerly.

I am also genuinely going to see if I can put together a small parent pressure group writing to Brighton Schools about the SC and the trans inclusion toolkit to see if with enough pressure, we can bring the whole thing down. It is absolutely abhorrent and has directly harmed children.

sniggers childishly

This. They are deliberately delaying the complaints process and breaking the law in the meantime so I'd be making an immediate complaint to Ofsted as its a safeguarding issue and also a leadership and management issue as they are knowingly breaking the law.

They are all stalling because they don't know what to do with the boy in the changing rooms. But that's not your problem and what is clear is that what they shouldn't do is put him in with the girls. That much they do know.

These places should be apologising to the girls for breaking the law and to their detriment all this time. They are meant to be responsible for them and keeping them safe.

Well done OP and good luck.

whoop!

Superb letter. I might reword "The UK Supreme Court ruling is now binding law." - as of course the SC judgment simply confirms that this has been the law since 2010. It's not new, nothing has changed. If school has not been compliant since 2010, they've been breaking the law all that time.

Very good point, sent now! but you are 100% right

"To reiterate: delaying compliance is not a lawful option."

This is such a mic-drop statement. True, calm, and as clear as clear can be. Wonderful stuff 😎

Fucking hell, you're brilliant! What absolute pricks; those poor girls!

It’s like when the law for children to wear seat belts came in and a school saying, we will just wait to see what the minibus manufacturer advises we do before we comply with the law.

Props to you @TangenitalContrivences

The suggestion that legal clarity is pending is misleading and inappropriate in the context of safeguarding.

There is so much to love about your letters, but that is my favourite bit (well, ok, I also cheered at the request for risk assessments). I don't imagine the recipients will be as delighted with them as we are on here but that's the price they pay for sluggish implementation.

Yes. Although to be a true comparative it would be "the law has been that seatbelts should be worn for x years, but it has only just been confirmed that has applied for all x years, in minibuses".

It's a great analogy though. Does the school a) carry on driving children in its minibus without seatbelts because that's what they've been doing for x years b) stop using them until seatbelts are fitted or c) send out a waffley statement that they are waiting for the minibus manufacturer, as per your example?

It absolutely brings home how ridiculous the school's response is.