Note: Please bear in mind that this is a discussion board, not a place to advertise childcare vacancies or recruit childminders/nannies etc. We don't mind the odd mumsnet regular mentioning that they're looking for a job/mindee (although you're probably better off in MN Local) but repeated job "ads" and posts from nanny/babysitting agencies aren't fair to people who are paying for small business ads. Do feel free to report any you see. Thanks, MNHQ.

Is £500 per week net really the going rate for a London nanny?

(77 Posts)
Gangle Sun 26-Sep-10 05:13:14

Have been told this many times by nannies and agencies but, having looked through the ads on Gumtree and Nannyjob, it seems that lots of employers offer salaries of a lot less than this. We may be hiring a new nanny in the near future and it would help a lot financially if I could get her to agree to a salary of £375 net per week for a 4 day week or £475 for a 5 day week, or even less £350/£450) if possible. Will she think I am taking the piss though? Still works out to a salary of around 33/34k, I believe. I want to pay her as much as I can but paying £500 a week is going to make things tight financially. We paid our previous nanny £500 per week but this was a nanny share in which each family paid £250 so it wasn't so much of a big deal

duchesse Sun 26-Sep-10 05:17:36

I still don't know how anyone could afford a nanny at those rates. Hardly anyone down here (Devon) even earns that much gross- not even supply teachers. Is there really such a huge difference between London salaries and the rest of the country?

Just to say that it seems like a lot of money to me.

Was your previous nanny share a full time share? Would you be able to enter into another share with someone?

Tavvy Sun 26-Sep-10 07:54:01

Salaries vary like they do everywhere.
For some reason nanny salaries are mostly quoted in net. I'm sure NannyNick Blondes and Frak will be along soon to address this point.
For a live-in nanny the average for a five day week is about £300-350 although can be lower and higher
I've never worked live-out in London but it seems to be around £400+
A four day week is very attractive to a nanny and I will probably be flamed now but how much you want to pay can depend on what you want in your nanny. Trained, professional EMT nannies are expensive but there are plenty of other options that will do more for less if you know what I mean.

Do you want live-in or out and what part of London? There are a lot of nannies wanting work in London esp 4 day week work so I would have thought you would easily find somebody for what you're offering. I think you have to stick to your limits. Agencies always quote high prices because they get more commission but if you overstretch yourself you will end up resenting the nanny which doesn't make for a good working relationship.

nannynick Sun 26-Sep-10 08:36:21

Salary can vary depending on experience. I would say that London is typically 20% higher than home counties... So £12 gross per hour would not be unusual for a qualified, experienced nanny.

Some nannies work 12 hour days, others 11, 10, 9, 8 etc. So salary depends on hours worked.

Haliborange Sun 26-Sep-10 08:44:26

IME there are lots of nannies who consider £100 per day net to be the (minimum) going rate in London. And lots of employers who near-bankrupt themselves to accomodate those rates because they think if they don't they won't get a nanny.

However, two things: no matter what impression you get from MN a lot of nanny employers do not pay tax. £10 an hour is a lot easier to accompdate if that is all you are paying. We've had three nannies and none of them had worked for someone who paid their tax before. The last two were happy to take a lesser salary to work for someone who did everything above board.

The other thing is that the job market is not that great atm. I don't know which bit of London you are in but I had one or two girls through the door who sniffed at what I was planning to pay and said "I could get £xx ph if I worked in Kensington", to which I replied, "go ahead then." My current nanny was prepared to take less because she lives near me and didn't want to commute (and if I work late she can be home very quickly) and she didn't want to be schlepping for 2 hours a day to work in Kensington or wherever.

So I say look at what you can really afford and then work on that basis. You are not going to get someone with 10 years experience but that doesn't mean you won't find someone who fits.

All you can do is advertise and see what shakes out. If it doesn't work you can always readvertise with a higher salary or consider other options. If you have space a nursery/AP combo could work depending on the ages of your children. It's likely to be cheaper than a full-time live out nanny on £500 net per week if you are paying all the tax, ni etc as that's near enough £800 (can't be bothered to pull the calc up now) p/w. Plus this person will eventually need a payrise too...If your only access is to nurseries around the £1,500 mark - still not THAT typical in London though - probably a live in nanny would be cheaper and even if not much cheaper, much more convenient.

Re: Haliborange's comments, I have had people outright tell me they are not paying all the tax. This is what inflates the salaries in this area of the country.

Gumtree is possibly not a great place to get a sense of the salaries. A lot of those ads just seem to be in cloud cukoo land and I've oftened wondered if many of them never end up hiring people.

frakkinnakkered Sun 26-Sep-10 09:22:46

Depends on your nanny!

I suspect I could get £500 working in London, but equally I suspect I'd be working long hours with a lot of flexibility and that's not something I would want. Then again I have various value added skills/bits of paper. I worked out speaking another language fluency (at least a desirable one) gets you about £50 extra a week, which translates to £1 an hour. Ditto a degree or any teaching qualifications. Experience comes at a premium too - an experienced nanny could command £10 net easily whereas someone with only 2/3 years would be looking more at £8. Then you take area into account plus any perks you're offering and that might adjust the salary too...

The net/gross thing.... I don't know where it came from, it's just tradition and a remarkably stupid one. Next year when the new allowances come in someone on a net salary won't be any better off. Equally if you employ a graduate nanny with a student loan or a nanny with a pre-existing job you'll end up paying more on top of a net salary.

My advice would be to advertise gross and put a net equivalent if necessary - taking into account the chance next year.

overweightnoverdrawn Sun 26-Sep-10 10:44:33

My friends just got a job in Weybridge Surrey for £450 a week

nannynick Sun 26-Sep-10 12:39:50

Is that Net or Gross and what are the hours?

Weybridge is inside the M25 but isn't London. It is however a little odd that on one side of the M25 it is cheaper than if on the other side!

Blondeshavemorefun Sun 26-Sep-10 13:29:17

if/when i work/ed 5 days a week then yes i can take home over £500 nett and i am not in london

yes you can find a nanny for less but she wont have so much exp as someone who commands that kind of salary

it does depend on the area/age/exp of nanny and also the current climate

a 4 day week is def a plus sign

StarExpat Sun 26-Sep-10 13:33:36

While St George's hill in Weybridge may offer extremely high salaries to nannies, other areas of weybridge will not. I know this for a fact as I know families in Weybridge both in and not in St George's hill area.
It all depends on the income of the family. I never like to see a family overstretching themselves to afford an expensive nanny. But that's just me - with all things - live within your means is my motto
I know 2 nannies who work in London live in with just a few years of experience. 5 day weeks full days both of them. One with a baby. One in northwest London and one in southwest London - salaries of £300 net per week and £315 net per week, respectively. One says family is definitely struggling for money and it makes her very uncomfortable. Other one everyone is happy

Starberries Sun 26-Sep-10 13:35:18

Until a month ago I took home a salary of 420 net working 4 days in London - I'm young, no quals, but 6 years experience, especially as sole charge for under-2's.

I am job-hunting at the moment (although probably going to do mat nursing) and wouldn't agree to a salary of less than 500 net/wk for 5 days as I know I can get a great family local to me (not central London) who would pay that amount. You have to remember too how much council tax/bills/food etc and especially housing cost in London - much higher than everywhere else in the UK. Friends of mine get 550 net and higher in Kensington.

In fact there is one job advertised very local to me at the moment (NOT Kensington/Belgravia, et. al) that is paying 600/net for a single 12-month-old for 5 days. I'd say that is very top-bracket, but 500 is the 'going rate', especially for more than 1 child I find. Not saying whether it's right or wrong, it's just what you find.

Starberries Sun 26-Sep-10 13:41:26

Also meant to say Gangle - salary is not the only thing in a package. If you are also offering something great (as Blondes mentioned, a 4-day week is a plus for most nannies) - such as an extra week or two holiday, bonus at Christmas, use of car, money towards Oyster card (this was always a huge plus for me), etc. then the slightly lower salary won't make as big of a difference. It also depends on duties (i.e. if she doesn't have to iron, etc. would be another perk, children at nursery/school, etc).

The only problem you'll have with finding a nanny through an agency though is that nannies browse the salaries - if it's less than what s/he expects, s/he will sniff and go to the next one - they won't even look at the extra perks. So if you're going this route, I'd personally advertise through Gumtree.

Another 'beware' of agencies: a lot of the times they don't put forward the proper candidates, I say this as a job-hunting nanny currently - I have particular experience and love for babies and have had agencies repeatedly not send my CV despite asking, I then found the families through Gumtree, who hired me and skipped the agency fee - I can't tell you how pleased I was to tell them which job I'd accepted grin.

StarExpat Sun 26-Sep-10 14:28:26

Wow a lot of families will soon be priced out of having a nanny if this is the current rate and it keeps rising. Will be only for the very wealthy and not so many jobs.

Starberries Sun 26-Sep-10 14:59:50

Star I think it's down to location. When not in London these 'going rates' drop CONSIDERABLY - but I do agree that a lot of families are getting priced out of the nanny option.

Starberries Sun 26-Sep-10 15:00:46

It's also very worth mentioning that most families in London paying these sorts of salaries (and any salary really) definitely want nanny to be/become Ofsted registered. I don't think it's as prevalent in other parts of the country for nannies. But I haven't come across one in my job search this time going that hasn't mentioned/wanted it.

Starberries Sun 26-Sep-10 15:01:00

So they do get some sort of financial help with vouchers.

nbee84 Sun 26-Sep-10 15:07:08

I've also been astounded at £500 net per week shock.

I'm on £8.50 net in Hertfordshire.

I have just worked out that if I worked 12 hour days and 5 days a week (which is common for a London nanny) I would actually be on £510 net per week.

So..... I now conclude that yes, £500 net per week is the going rate for a nanny in London blush.

nbee84 Sun 26-Sep-10 15:13:56

The financial help with vouchers is £243 of their salary per month tax free, so a saving of £48.60 per month. Or £97.20 per month if they are a higher rate tax payer. And that could be x2 if both parents claim, so a max of £194.40 per month.

SoLongAsItsHealthy Sun 26-Sep-10 15:16:03

My friend lives in Belsize Park, London (quite wealthy area for those who don't know it) and she pays her nanny £10 an hour net. This usually works out at £100 a day and she has her two days a week so yes, the £500 thing would seem to be spot on. The nanny is NOT highly qualified, is young, eastern european and studying child-care part-time. HTH.

overweightnoverdrawn Sun 26-Sep-10 15:21:34

my friends job is net and its not St Georges Hill .

Laquitar Sun 26-Sep-10 16:07:52

I agree with the others but i would like to add that apart from location, duties etc another factor is the number and age of the children. For example if you have a 4 month old baby you probably need a qualified and very experienced nanny. Ditto if you have 3 or 4 children.

In your case, i think you have one and not very young? (because you mention that you had nanny before). So perhaps you can find someone younger/less experienced for slightly less.

StarExpat Sun 26-Sep-10 17:11:49

Overweight - glad she found a generous family

I'm sure you would find a nanny for £350-£450 a week. Advertise and see who applies!

There will be nannies who wouldn't dream of working for less than £500 and others who would be happy on £300 - you have to find the right one for you.

Blondeshavemorefun Sun 26-Sep-10 18:55:58

its not a case of not being happy on £300 for 5 days,its the fact that its not enough to pay my mortgage/bills/food etc

though obv i wouldnt work for £300 for 5days as i get over that for 3 - but im old grin

BoffinMum Sun 26-Sep-10 22:20:50

If it's any help, I have also been aware of nannies expecting and asking for salaries at this level, and being unemployed months and months later. The ones who asked for £300-£400 net and expected less in the way of perks (i.e. paid their own Childcare Approval fees, did not expect leisure use of a car, etc) seemed to get work when and where they wanted it. Nuff said. I think around here, employers are getting a bit more clued up and less easy to bully. (BTW leisure use of a car and money towards Oyster cards is a taxable perk so technically dodgy).

My theory is that a lot of nannies who have sat on my sofa pestering for higher salaries believe all the nanny salary 'surveys' as gospel truth, and have no idea about how tax works, which contributes to their naivety.

BTW Frakkin, the net pay thing dates from 1911 when National Insurance was introduced for the first time, and employers started paying sixpence or whatever to the state on behalf of their domestic staff. A century later (some) nannies haven't quite adapted to this ... present company excepted, if course wink

Blondeshavemorefun Sun 26-Sep-10 22:56:30

<waves to boffy?>

cant always blame the nannys,i blame the agencys, just looked at 5 local ones in my area ALL state their jobs in nett hmm

8 NETT from tinies

8/10nett harmony

nett again by tinies

500nett harmoney

8/9nett busybees

10nett etc enchnated childcare

8/9nett tigerlily

nannylocal Sun 26-Sep-10 23:02:40

I'm in West London and £10nph is the going rate. For 8am-6pm, 5-days a week then you would be looking at £500 per week. I do know nannies that work for less £8/9nph but these are usually unqualified/inexperienced or nannies who bring their own children with them.

mamatomany Sun 26-Sep-10 23:11:27

We paid £10 an hour ooop north and still didn't find Mary Poppins herself, plenty of much less qualified staff considered themselves worthy of £10 net.

livefortoday Sun 26-Sep-10 23:48:29

I personally couldn't afford to live on less than £500 a week
BUT..
I work and live in central london, where a small studio flat is min £750 a month without bills. council tax is in the highest bracket, even things like a bottle of water in the news-agents is double most places.

Most nannies I know around here are on £10-£12 per/hr, and do 12 hr days, 5 days per week.

So yes I think £500 is very resonable especially if live-out

frakkinnakkered Mon 27-Sep-10 05:58:21

You learn something new every day grin

nannyj Mon 27-Sep-10 06:47:43

I've just moved back to my old job after mat leave and my car insurance went up by £400 a year. So it's expensive to live in London and that's why the salaries are high. I think when you're experienced you can get the higher rate because there is less competition.

StarExpat Mon 27-Sep-10 08:19:42

Wow, so it does look like nannies (experienced ones at least, needing £500+ per week) will be reserved for only the very wealthy. So glad I'm happy with my cm

Not a huge suprise that wealthy people employ top nannies, is it? They also go on better holidays and have bigger houses.

StarExpat Mon 27-Sep-10 09:04:29

No, not surprising or unusual at all. Just that if agencies keep saying that all nannies cost this much, it's going to price a lot of families out, which will mean fewer jobs available for nannies.

BoffinMum Mon 27-Sep-10 09:47:34

Star, that was my point. I knew of two shall we say 'elite' nannies who could not find work at £500 a week recently. Nothing wrong with them, just that people thought it was too expensive.

You can get a live in experienced nanny for £6 an hour net round by me.

The argument about affordability versus wages is a pretty weak one - after childcare and petrol and parking at work I have £40 a week left to live on, which works out at £2000-ish a year. I can't go to my employers and gripe about this and demand higher wages - they just pay me the going rate for the job and that's that. Tough.

frakkinnakkered Mon 27-Sep-10 10:33:09

The thing is, and we're seeing it already, if people will pay that then nannies will ask it.

If people can't afford it, they'll still have a nanny but they'll get a nanny who's willing to work for what they can pay, which might not be their dream nanny but for some people a nanny is the only viable option. Eventually the expensibe nannies will realise they've priced themselves out of the market and drop their rates a bit (and economise as best they can to live) because any job is better than no job.

Also people are getting a lot savvier about sharing the cost of a very experienced nanny, so even if it's about 25% more than the nanny would earn they're only paying what they can afford, and nannies are a lot more willing to do a share.

Equally nannies with their own children realise they can't afford to be fussy and drop their rates which means parents are getting a bargain.

So whilst some nannies will ask for and get £500/week, or even more, others are undercutting them! But there will always be those parents who want their DC to have undivided attention from a trained, experienced nanny with glowing references and are willing to pay for it. And there will always be nannies going for those jobs.

Haliborange Mon 27-Sep-10 10:33:39

Quite Boffinmum.

I know a number of nanny employers whose incomes have taken hits in the past few years (mine has been cut by 60% and I was operating at a loss for a while) and that is starting to have an impact on nanny salaries I think.

Of course, it is in the agencies' interest to keep talking salaries up, given that their fee is calculated by reference to nanny pay...

StarExpat Mon 27-Sep-10 10:58:26

Frakkin, while I agree with you... your last paragraph.... I'm sure some people also want that for their DC and would be willing to pay it... if they could. But a lot of people can't. Doesn't mean they don't want that for their dc/ want the best for their dc.

StarExpat Mon 27-Sep-10 10:59:51

and I know you didn't mean it that way, frakkin. I'm just very sensitive at the moment and the word "willing" sort of twisted in my stomach.

frakkinnakkered Mon 27-Sep-10 11:15:52

I didn't mean to make you feel bad, Star.

I couldn't think of a sensitive way to phrase it other than those who are willing to pay for it although I suppose I could have stuck a can in there as well, so please take the ammended verion - those who can and are willing to pay for it. Because there are plenty of very wealthy people out there who can pay and aren't willing... It's not intended as a reflection on those who would be willing if they could at all.

StarExpat Mon 27-Sep-10 12:40:16

Thanks Frakkin Apologies for my oversensitivity blush

Lily311 Mon 27-Sep-10 14:20:23

I do get around 500 net a week but I do a nannyshare so families do share the amount equally. Though I would not expect one family to give me 500 net in London as it is way too much if you count tax and NI as well. I would be expecting for a 5 day week around 450 net (10hours per day, I have level 4 qualification (currently doing the foundation degree) and 7 years experience with babies and toddlers.Hope this helps.

wrinklyraisin Mon 27-Sep-10 15:11:16

It's been my personal experience that many of the families who CAN pay a fortune for childcare fall into two camps: the ones who DO pay a hefty sum but require the nanny's soul in return, and those who DON'T pay a fortune but instead pay peanuts for the cheapest care available, often using illegal immigrants, and bleed them dry.

In a lot of wealthy families it's not the money that's the issue but the attitude they have that dictates the sort of care they will pay for.

I get soooooooo many other mums complaining to me about their nannies. I have to bite my tongue most of the time as if you choose to pay 4 euros an hour you are not going to get a highly educated and dedicated nanny.

I understand 99.5% of families want the best for their DCs but I do not understand people choosing to pay peanuts instead of a decent and fair wage, and then complain about the person they have hired.

LadyBiscuit Mon 27-Sep-10 15:56:08

Why is nanny salary always quoted in net rather than gross? That has always mystified me. Does it happen in any other occupation? confused

Yes I think nannies are the preserve of the wealthy on the whole - see if you can find a good childminder is my advice!

Blondeshavemorefun Mon 27-Sep-10 16:24:48

Grrr wrote out a huge reply and signal went / the thrills of working in the middle of nowhere

was the general drift of not every wealthy employer falls into those 2

My family are wealthy and lovely and treat me well and when things went a bit tits up in the rw earlier this year they were over 100% supportive and def don't want my soul lol

as have been most of my other familys. I have always worked for wealthy familys and all have treated me well

every parent wants the best childcare they can afford

wrinklyraisin Mon 27-Sep-10 17:32:26

I didn't mean every wealthy family. Just the ones I have been exposed to. In the USA most of the wealthy families I came across in my neighborhood hired Mexican/Jamaican/Brazilian nannies as they are half the price of a stereotypical American/European nanny. I lived in that environment for 4 years and saw many nannies pass through those families doors. Low pay + huge expectations = unhappy nanny.

I was lucky and still am. I work for a wealthy family who wanted to pay a fair/decent amount. But I have sold my soul in a way as with big paychecks come big responsibilities.

Anyhoo I agree. Parents generally want the best they can get.

wrinklyraisin Mon 27-Sep-10 17:32:26

I didn't mean every wealthy family. Just the ones I have been exposed to. In the USA most of the wealthy families I came across in my neighborhood hired Mexican/Jamaican/Brazilian nannies as they are half the price of a stereotypical American/European nanny. I lived in that environment for 4 years and saw many nannies pass through those families doors. Low pay + huge expectations = unhappy nanny.

I was lucky and still am. I work for a wealthy family who wanted to pay a fair/decent amount. But I have sold my soul in a way as with big paychecks come big responsibilities.

Anyhoo I agree. Parents generally want the best they can get.

nannynick Mon 27-Sep-10 17:45:35

Agencies I feel are responsible for the Net pay situation these days... as they are the ones who keep advertising Net wages... and I presume they tell nannies what net wage to expect.

Last agency I was with, I choose because they advertised Gross salaries. I've noticed though that now they have gone with advertising some jobs as Net, though certainly not all. Seems to be a bit of a mixture... so maybe they are testing how specifying the salary in Gross vs Net affects applicants applying for the jobs.

If there was some control over the ways agencies operate, then they could all be told to stop advertising Net wages. However their is controlling body... anyone can setup an agency and often they are setup by ex-nannies. Best agencies I've come across are not owned by ex-nannies (though they may have an ex-nanny on their staff) but by people with an recruitment/HR background.

Tavvy Mon 27-Sep-10 18:01:41

My experience has been like wrinklyraisin.
I also have found that because I once worked for one incredibly wealthy HP family I tend to command higher wages just by association. Not complaining but I know when I go for a high salary then I can expect to surrender my soul for a while. I'll collect it from passport control or butler on my way out grin

In this market nannies have to adjust their expectations like everybody else. It is not a given that they get 500 net, a car, gym membership, eight weeks paid holiday and cash bonuses every so often.

The best jobs I've had were definitely at the lower end of the (london) payscale so £300 - £350 net a week (live in) but they were so much nicer to work for. Anything over £750 net and you can kiss your soul goodbye.

frakkinnakkered Mon 27-Sep-10 18:06:23

Boffinmum explained the net thing - it dates from the introduction of NI apparently. Stupid tradition...

LadyBiscuit Mon 27-Sep-10 18:12:20

Oh sorry, missed that. Seems bonkers

wrinklyraisin Mon 27-Sep-10 18:12:25

Lol Tavvy! I left my soul and my dignity with the housekeeper in this job. I won't be getting either back anytime soon grin

wrinklyraisin Mon 27-Sep-10 18:12:25

Lol Tavvy! I left my soul and my dignity with the housekeeper in this job. I won't be getting either back anytime soon grin

Blondeshavemorefun Mon 27-Sep-10 19:36:08

agree nick, its the agencies that are to blame, as i said in my earlier post that 5 near me all state in nett hmm

one of the best agencies near me is www.elizabethhenrynannies.co.uk/ owned and run by my dear friend sam, and she is an ex nanny,mummy and also worked in an recruitment for a few years after nannying and before coming a mummy - so she has the best knowledge and is fab/professional and LISTENS

she states salary in gross and we often bat across ideas when she wants to have a chat

Tavvy Mon 27-Sep-10 23:19:47

Sounds familiar wrinklyraisin.
I thought my soul and dignity had been lost forever as our housekeeper was like Mrs Danvers and the butler was less Jeeves and more Nightmare on Elm Street crossed with Mr Hudson on speed. They pay more for the quirk factor I think as well as us being an accessory to child rearing

Once you have a rep for being able to work succesfully with challenging families you're pretty much screwed as agencies latch onto you with talons. Funny how they're always the ones that offer the most cash!
Agencies are very pushy. Mine quoted a ridiculous net price to a family once for a really ordinary temp job when we'd already agreed the standard rate. The rate in the contract they sent to the family was not the same as in mine. Does she cover nationwide Blondes. (Must go and check out website)

Lullyloo Wed 03-Jul-13 14:44:58

As a qualified private Nanny, i earned £400pw net when i worked in London. At the time i thought i was extremely well paid, having found the job independently.
However, when attending an agency interview for a new job, the owner of the agency actually laughed at me and told me i had been grossly underpaid. I now work on the south coast and get paid the same wage here as i did there.
You do see ads on Gumtree etc offering paltry wages, but in my opinion no decent, qualified childcarer who has faith in their abilities would work for anything less than the wage that has been recommended by a London agency. You have to pay the best to get the best.

Wickedgirl Wed 03-Jul-13 21:09:13

not all wealthy families are awful to work for.

I get paid £12 net per hour (20 hours a week over 2 days), in a fully staffed house and the family are lovely. I started with a 2 yr old and a 6 week old and they are now 3 and 1. They are not based in London.

I am level 3 qualified and have over 20 years of experience and specialise in maternity jobs so most of my nanny jobs have included a baby.

hinnigan01 Wed 03-Jul-13 21:11:38

An excellent nanny is worth the minimum nett hourly rate of £10an hour. I run an Agency and charge a flat fee , so it's not in my personal interest to try and get the nannies more per hour. I try and get them what they deserve hourly rates vary between £8-£12 nett an hour. The latter being for a qualified nanny, excellent job history and possibly a 3 day week ?? As a parent you get what you pay for with childcare. A nanny that has trained for 2 years full time and done other courses eg MNT to grow professionally should be commanding minimum £10 an hour. It's a demanding role and should be valued.
I do advertise my roles as gross as much as possible smile only when I'm talking hourly do I talk nett.

Mimishimi Wed 03-Jul-13 23:52:14

£500 a week doesn't sound ridiculously high. Nannies traditionally have been the domain of the well-off, if not the wealthy. I don't think good ones with qualifications will find themselves priced out of a job. If someone wants to pay less than the going rates recommended by the agency, they would need to advertise themselves and find one through methods with possibly a few less checks and balances (Gumtree etc). There will always be someone desperate enough to take the cheap jobs, whether or not that person would make the best employee is another matter.

Maursh Thu 04-Jul-13 12:23:20

I advertised on Gumtree at £8.50/hour and had 100 responses within 24hours. London is awash with European teachers who are (legally) looking for childcare work because it's unavailable in their home country. They may not have UK childcare qualifications, but they are often degree educated in something to do with children (primary school teaching, child development, children's psychology)

Interesting, when I was looking about 18 months ago in Surrey, I would have had to pay more there for a Nanny than I do now in London. There is a supply/demand issue I would say - too many people looking for childcare work. Admittedly not all of them are suitable, but there is sufficient supply that the wage rate has fallen.

siliconglen Thu 04-Jul-13 22:57:21

Can someone give me some guidance please on the ballpark rate for a nanny in West Lothian for around 45-50 hours a week please. Also I need the rate I pay the nanny, their tax is their affair if they are self employed so I am looking for an all inclusive rate.

thanks

Nannyme1 Sat 06-Jul-13 07:09:55

sillconglen nannies can NOT be self employed unless they are all temp jobs, a full time nanny can't be SE unless ofcourse you want her to dictate what hours she works, when she doesn't want to come in and send someone else in when she's sick or just doesn't want to come.

As above (mostly) have said 500 is def. the going rate in central London for live out. Personally I earn a bit more but am working a lot of hours and have to travel a lot with family so can't really have a life.
Just because it is the average doesn't mean you can get someone for less or that they will be rubbish when you do.

My last job in Chelsea I attended a playgroup for nannies/CM and their charges and it was the Norland nannies (not saying all of them cause all the other i have met are amazing but this particular group of 4) that were the most unfriendly and unwelcoming and that sat there and ate chocolates and read their magazines. Felt sorry for their parents probably paying a fortune and having a nanny that does that.

Someone above also said that don't believe what you read on MN that a lot of people don't pay tax and NI but that is just stupid IMO. There are a lot of nannies at the moment who find this out and report them straight away even if they aren't taking the job. Can you imagine if your employers didn't pay yours??! This is our career we deserve the same as everyone else.

I think you can find lovely people for lower rates maybe qualified but little experience, maybe experienced but not qualified or their rent is cheaper they live at home.

T1tch85 Sat 06-Jul-13 09:07:44

I am just outside London (Buckinghamshire) and I get paid £16,500 per year (before TAX and NI) for 45 hours per week.

MarshaBrady Sat 06-Jul-13 09:12:44

£10 net seems the norm in SE London. Generally 10 or 11 hours a day.

Cathyrina Sat 06-Jul-13 09:38:01

Yes it is the going rate but it always depends on the Nanny really and you can definitely give it a try and see what happens, some don't go anywhere under 500, others are happy to earn less. I would be happy about a 4 days a week job for said salary because I am young, not qualified etc. and would love to have a 5th day to do something else next to nannying, i.e. courses or similar

Blondeshavemorefun Sat 06-Jul-13 16:10:45

when this thread was done over 2.5years ago, yes the normal for an exp nanny was about £10 nett in south east/london areas

now there are jobs paying that but there are also more nannies about and parents reliese that they can pay less so more like £8/9hr

as long as the hours are there, then i dont mind the pay cut so much iyswim, ie i need to earn ideally between £360/400 gross a week and thats for 3 days but may be 12hr days , but if 10hr days then weekly salary is lower and i just cant afford to pay all my bills

oscarwilde Mon 08-Jul-13 13:00:02

www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation
The London living wage is currently £8.55 per hr. This is considered to be the minimum rate to be able to sustain a reasonable standard of living in London. Most London nannies will work a 10 hr day so it's relatively easy to get to £10 per hr/ £500 a week in no time. Some will pay tax out of this but more often than not, it's a net figure.

Most cleaners in London will charge £8-10 per hr without agency costs on top so a nanny will command a higher hourly rate for obvious reasons.

valiumredhead Mon 08-Jul-13 13:13:26

500 a week wasn't unheard of at all 12 years ago when I worked as as nanny in London. Even 5 years ago I was charging 10 an hour but that was part time.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Mon 08-Jul-13 13:23:40

I am really shocked at the number of people who still think it's OK not to pay your nanny's tax and NI. It is well known and well-publicised that a full-time nanny is an employee and it is not lawful to treat them as self-employed. or fair, frankly. I pay £9.50 an hour in Surrey plus tax and NI on top, which for a 4-day week with 2 school age kids I think is fine, and seems competitive judging by what local agencies tell me.

Notcontent Wed 10-Jul-13 17:57:57

There are also lots of nannies being paid a lot less.
I have never paid that much because I simply can't afford it. But I do pay tax, etc.

lj123 Wed 10-Jul-13 20:45:25

If I was getting £500 a week if travel from ascot to London to nanny I'd have no complaints! Seems like a lot considering I've been in childcare 9 years and haven't yet taken home that.
I worked in private nursery and crèche so far.

mag25 Mon 15-Jul-13 16:42:58

I've been a Nanny in Kensington for past 8 years, and i definitely think that if you would like very trustful and very experienced nanny who will know all area, huge network of other Nannies,who will be very well organise for playdates,activities, and most important who will put health,safety and HAPPINESS for your children at first... you will need to pay at least 10/h net. Only desperate nanny will agree for less than that,nanny who wants the job not because she loves spend time with kids , but because she needs the money... she will do the hours, mostly on the phone with friends.. not caring about the kids. You need to understand that Happy Nanny means Happy Children...and that should be priority for parents. Nanny needs to live as well... same as you. Parents should think that nanny who looks after your children is responsible for their life..., lots of parents do not think about that, and try get as cheap care as possible,to safe money.

Novstar Mon 15-Jul-13 16:59:33

mag25

You are confused, at so many levels... it's people like you who propagate the myth that any nanny worth their salt should not get out of bed for less than £10 ph net, making expectations of inexperienced nannies way out of line with market forces. Maybe in Kensington, with your working conditions, £10phn is reasonable. But it's just not true to say that you must pay that much elsewhere or in any other nanny job to get a decent nanny.

> Only desperate nanny will agree for less than that,nanny who wants the job not because she loves spend time with kids , but because she needs the money...

That's just not true. I'm in London and I've had very nice, competent, capable nannies for less than £7ph net, and also totally crap ones for £11ph net. Salary is mostly determined by market forces, not solely by how wonderful a nanny you are. Anyway what the hell is wrong with working because you need the money?? Or do you work purely because you love it?

firesideskirt Wed 17-Jul-13 23:04:39

The London living wage is £8.55 gross, not net.

FrontLoader Thu 18-Jul-13 17:30:06

We're in London, Zone 2, have an Ofsted registered, experienced, graduate nanny and pay £400 per week net for 40 hours. So, £10 per hour net. She was one of the cheaper nannies we interviewed in our area. We have a baby and a preschooler.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now