Ben Singh Sowerby

Introduction

Ben Singh Sowerby arrived at Corbets Tey School in Essex as a class teacher in April 2020 on an application the regulator later found was built on fabrications: referees named who had never been his line managers, a Head of Music title he knew was untrue, a previous salary of £45,000 he did not earn, and a former role as an acting deputy head teacher he had never held. Within five months he was making phone calls to parents that went far beyond his authority — naming other people’s children and their special educational needs to a stranger, and boasting that Ofsted had rated him an outstanding teacher. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel found the dishonesty proved across the board; on 6 April 2022 decision maker John Knowles banned him from teaching for life, with a five-year review period.

Background Information

Sowerby had been employed at East London Independent School (ELIS), resigning on 14 February 2020 with his last day on 3 April 2020. His application form to Corbets Tey School, dated 4 February 2020, named Individual A as first referee — described as his “Head of Post – Line Manager”, which was not the case — and Individual C as second referee, again stated as his line manager at his previous employer when that was not so. He stated his previous salary as £45,000 and requested and permitted referees to corroborate the figure. He stated his previous role had been Acting Deputy Head Teacher, which it was not. After his appointment, on 16 June 2020, he wrote a reference for Individual B stating that he had been B’s line manager at ELIS — he had not been — and describing himself as the acting deputy head there. The panel found 1.g, this reference-writing, proved.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Falsified his references, salary, role and Ofsted record to win a teaching post, then disclosed vulnerable children’s details to the wrong parents by phone; banned with a five-year review.

On 23 September 2020, five months into the job, Sowerby made calls to the parents of three children at the school. In one, he named a child and disclosed that child’s personal details and individual needs to the parent of a different child; the school’s individual-needs lead heard the recordings of three such calls and obtained transcripts. He told one parent, “with regards to Pupil A, because of how he’s presenting at the moment he is changing a little bit of the work avoidance and targeting another learner which is classed as bullying” — an allegation the school’s individual-needs lead confirmed had never been discussed with it, and which the panel found proved as unfounded. He claimed to have been rated an outstanding teacher by Ofsted — “I got outstanding from Ofsted with regards to my teaching and that’s why [Individual D is] really keen for me to take this class” — which was false, and misrepresented his employment history. He denied everything in his response to the referral; at the hearing, represented by Doughty Street Chambers counsel instructed by the National Education Union, he accepted most of the facts but denied they amounted to misconduct, denied allegations 1.b, 2, 3.b and 4, and gave evidence. The panel did not find him a credible witness — inconsistent in parts of his evidence — and found the application conduct dishonest, the 3.b, 3.c and 3.d claims proved, the Ofsted and history boasts dishonest, and allegation 4 proved.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel’s reasoning ran through the position of trust: “it is fundamental to the teaching profession that teachers act both honestly and with integrity”, and a fabricated persona at the point of hiring — the references, the salary, the title — was conduct whose repetition in an education setting could be deeply damaging, especially to pupils. It found allegation 2 proved in respect of the application fabrications, and allegation 4 proved for the Ofsted and employment-history boasts to parents. Weighing mitigation, it found a review period appropriate but only “of sufficient duration”: five years. Knowles agreed, imposing prohibition with immediate effect and the five-year review — meaning any application to set the order aside cannot come before 9 April 2027. He resigned from Corbets Tey School on 13 November 2020, while the school’s investigation into the 23 September calls was under way; the referral to the TRA followed on or around 24 November 2020, ending the teaching career the fabricated application had won.

Current Status

Sowerby is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The order carries a five-year review period — the longest review structure short of no-review — and he may apply for it to be set aside only from 9 April 2027 at the earliest, with no guarantee of success. The order took effect from service on him. His start date at Corbets Tey School was 20 April 2020 and the calls came that September: the teaching career the decision documents lasted five months, and the register now records the falsified application, the June reference he wrote himself into, and the parent-phone disclosures in full. No criminal proceedings appear in the decision.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The case is the register’s fullest recent study of application fraud as misconduct in its own right: the panel treated the hiring dossier — referees, salary, job title, and the self-authored reference for Individual B — as a single dishonest course, and the parent calls as its continuation once he held the post. The five-year review encodes the panel’s view that dishonesty of this kind takes longer than two years to re-verify: any future employer reading the register must be able to trust the paper trail, and his had been manufactured. The decision also records the panel’s process discipline — Ivey v Genting Casinos for dishonesty, Wingate for integrity, and an explicit credibility finding against a represented teacher who gave evidence. For schools, it documents why reference sections demand current line managers: every fabrication he told was one a single phone call would have caught.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Ben Singh Sowerby” — source