Nanny pay & contract Problems - Help

the most redundancy pay is £330 see here

all employers could set up some kind of direct debit to an account and if they paid £27.50 a month or £6.34 a week this would cover their nannys redundancy

I would like to think that I am worth £6.34 a week to my mb

I can understand why you are upset and you kept her on for longer to help her out. However, technically she probably is entitled to redundancy pay. Your childminder hasn't 'stolen her job' as your childminder is self employed running a business of her own and you have engaged her services rather than hiring another employee. Therefore, I doubt she can claim unfair dismissal or demand her job back so you shouldn't need to pay any compensation for that. You may owe her holiday pay and notice pay too - depends what your contract with her says regarding how notice needs to be given and also what happens with holiday pay - e.g. does it expire if not taken by a certain date and was that date passed by the time you terminated her employment? Really I think you need someone to look at the contract and advise you - possibly your local council has some walk-in legal advice centres who could help?

Au pairs don't exist any more anyway. They were a visa status which is now dealt with under the points scheme and the youth mobility initiatives. They're part-time mothers helps however much the spirit of cultural exchange might remain and as such are employees and covered under employment law.

Pixinanny - do a 12 hour course, take a multiple choice test and you're qualified enough to register with OFSTED. Or MNT offer a distance learning equivalent. Of course you'll need the paediatric first aid and insurance but I'm of the school of thought that you'd be crazy to work without them anyway.

Blondes
i agree. Also snickers says this: '..not only it is the law, it is fair and apropriate'. In fact her whole post is a good example of a responsible employer and a person who respects others.

Haarriet is also on the spot about under-reporting. it is true.

As for the OP i think there is more on emotional level if you read through the lines. Did you notice the bit about 'the nanny had another baby even she is in unstable relationship'? - maybe she shouldnt even reproduce?

how this topic ended

i totally understand that many people dont have £2k+ floating around but this idea

"If people were sensible they would put that money into a separate account every year in case they needed it. If they didn't need it because the nanny quit, they could use it to fund the finding of another nanny"

sounds good - do any of you employers really begrudge paying your nanny one week extra pay per year, yes if they have been there 5+years it does get exp, but also think of the benifits that your children have had with the continual care and love of one nanny

the op nanny is only wanting what she is entitled to, just as if the op got made redundant she would want what she was entitled to

yes many of us nannies are lucky to have a job in this climate but employers also remember that if you didnt have nannies that you prob wouldnt be able to do your job

snickersnack "As an employer of a nanny, I've always operated on the assumption that I owe my nanny the same employment rights that my employer owes me. That's why I pay her tax and NI, why I would pay her maternity leave if she needed it, why she has a contract with clear terms and conditions governing expected performance, and why I've always assumed that if we had to let her go, we would need to pay her statutory redundancy pay if she'd been with us for more than two years"

sums it up perfectly

I'm sure under-reporting is widespread. Wonder if Donal MacIntyre will get onto it now that he's lost Strictly Come Ice Dancing or whatever it was he was on.

Okay, I just tried to find laws but there are only really recommendations. The only legality you need is a letter of invitation to employment (not the best way to word that actually...) and the recommended pay is £55 a week! That's cheap and slave labour. I did wonder why I was only offered that by some British families. I'd never pay somebody that little!

I remember one family offered me £55 until I registered with ofsted and it would become £150 a week, but I'm not qualified so I couldn't register with ofsted from my understanding?

I think, Pixi, it is because an Au Pair isn't techinically an employee. Even if you are British, you don't work enough hours to be taxed and I believe (but am no expert!) that you don't require a contract, legal entitlement to holiday, SMP, SSP, SPP, and so on.

Actually, all the legal speak reminds me of a convo I had with my employer the other day. She hires APs normally (technically I'm not one as I'm British, but I have an APs job which I'm happy with!) and regularily checks laws and things, though there aren't many laws regarding APs, only guidelines. Why is this? Surely there should be something regarding this?

That is an interesting point, Hariet, about how much nannies are actually paid and how much is reported. It would be interesting to run a comparison of the average nanny wages according to nannytax vs the average nanny wage according to the IR. I bet they would be vastly different. And of then there will be people who might change the nanny's job title to make her tax deductable. (including MPs!)

I have had several nannies who have told me that most of their nanny friends get at least some element of their pay in cash. So, I have always thought there must be a fair few few MNers lying about their dedication to the tax/legal system.

Oh blimey I missed all the fun.

I agree that the OP has been very niave but I sympathise to an extent in that employing someone is a minefield and its so easy to give on trust and get it wrong.

There should be some tax releif for employing a nanny just the same as there is for all businesses when employing staff. Its grossly unfair but its not the nannies fault.

The lesson here is never accept something that is not properly documented , understood by both parties and legal.

Employing a nanny is a legal process not doing someone a favour. Keep it on a professional level and all should be well.

goodness, this thread has gone a bit downhill?

as a nanny (a british one at that) I have to say I wasn't at all offended by AN comments.

I think that there should be some sort of tax break/help/something(!!) for employers of nannies... the reality is, some parents need nannies, and nannies cost a lot, it seems insane that some parents basically work to fund their nanny, but such is life.
I cannot imagine how the OP is feeling, as although yes, in the eyes of the law, she may have extra money to pay etc - but the nanny/nanny employer relationship is such a personal one that it must feel like a real kick in the teeth when she turns round and acts this way.

although, as harriet said, the OP could have understood her responsibilities better, it seems a shame that her ex nanny accepted all the perks on a personal level whilst employed, but now she has worked out she is owed money, she wants to keep it strictly business

Dawn, legally you're obliged to pay this woman off, but I do see where you're coming from. Having no contact with somebody for so long and then they contact you out of the blue demanding money must be a pain, but the law prevails. I hope you sort this out without too much hassle!

And Athene, when I'm older and have kids of my own I would probably do the same as you are doing in keeping nannies for a year or two. The children I look after have had au pairs for no more than two years at a time and have had brilliant experiences and have learnt about different cultures and have such open minds and attitudes, it's fantastic.
When I have kids I want them to learn at least one other language, though probably more. I will teach any child of mine English, Farsi and BSL, and probably get French speaking nannies/au pairs to teach them French from a young age (and teach me too!) as I'm very keen on languages and culture, I think it's really important for children to be able to communicate well and have a better understanding of the world.

Oh dear how nasty this got.

The OP should certainly have understood her responsibilities better but the lack of professionalism can go both ways in my experience of recruiting people. But it's crazy as a parent not to remember that you are the one who will be found legally accountable when it goes wrong. It's also true that plenty of places where a parent might go and expect to get sensible advice (agencies, payroll legal services, etc) cock up from time to time so, yes it is very hard for an individual family to be an employer and be treated the same as, say Unilever, in the eyes of the law.

The trouble is that if many people under report their nanny's earnings HMRC can't get an accurate grip on how heavy the tax burden on the parents is under current legislation. SO, reforming simplyfied PAYE which nick et al were talking about earlier is unlikely to happen if they think that nannies salaries are well under the threashold.

I dont care Athene where you are from. At all.
Nite

No, LaQ, I cannot tell from your typing what country you are from, just as you probably haven't picked up which one I am from.

oh no no dont twist my words.

I NEVER talked about British superiority. And i am not British myself.

I was talking about people who take advantage of live - in nannies from abroad. Lets face it it is easier to take advantage with someone who is new in the country, doesnt speak good english and doesnt know about the british law. Also if she is live in it is more difficult for her to leave if you piss her off because she ll be homeless.

I am not saying that all employers of those girls take advantage, there are some very nice. But some of them do. In my nannying years i ve met some of these girls and heard their stories.

Yes you are right i dont kno everything about you. I comment about your post re nannies and tax. Many of us thought that your attitude stinks.

Now DO NOT accuse me of talking about 'british superiority'because your trick is very moronic. Cant you tell from my english that i am not even British ffs?

I don't think you know much about me LaQuitar. The "pick and mix" comment was pretty rude, and so was the implication that I don't treat me nanny well enough to attract a British one. I don't really understand this whole British superiority attitude that some people have about nannies. I don't avoid the British, but I also don't see what makes them inherently better nannies.

Read my above post

actually, that's a very good idea nanny nick. I will also draw one up because it was (I believe) exactly why the scheme was started. I also think a pack should be provided to employers when they register with just a 'simple' guide to employment law (because it isn't that hard to set out the main issues up front).

As an employer at work (for a company), I get provided with newsletters and information packs that I don't receive as an employer of one person in my own individual right iyswim. I think it would be of some benefit to people to receive that sort of assistance (and to keep them up to date with changing laws).

So, why the opposition to non-Btritish nannies?

where did i say it is not reasonable to employ people from other countries. I said it is not reasonable to try and take advantage of any emploee/

erm no i am not campaining for the BNP and dont try to be 'smart' now. Quite the opposite as it is very clear

Foxinsocks - simplified law is probably wishful thinking on my part but the Simplified PAYE scheme should in my view be changed so that it covers more people. Perhaps having a £2000 per month threshold would be sufficient to mean that most nannies would fall under that scheme, rather than full PAYE. I feel a letter to my MP is due!

yes, ShinyPink, it was.