Time to go from nanny to au pair?

I think Inland Revenue used to value board and lodging it at about £35 per week..

It's somewhere in here anyway...

Taxable Benefit of Board & Lodging

I've posted a response to this here but have copied it into a new discussion thread continued from Au Pair Placements - is an au pair an employee or cultural exchange

nannynick We've had au pairs from the Czech Republic before and when we called the border & immigration department to register them for the worker registration scheme (necessary for employees from the 2004 new A8 countries) we were told we didn't need to bother as au pair work/placements are not considered employment.

mranchovy If you read the bottom of this page definition of au pair by European Commission then it is quite clear "The committee wants to stress that an au pair is not an employee and therefore not governed by employment legislation."

Just above this it also stresses "Definitions defined by ECAPS are based on the existing European Agreement on Au Pair Placement from 1968 (Ets 068), however updated and detailed to modern standards." So has incorporated the changes made to include male au pairs and other changes that have been made.

Your pointing out of the word 'employment' in document BR3 is another example of 2+2=5 to pick out words to extrapolate an unfounded point. The word employment is often used as a general term. It and 'employed' can be used in different contexts - in some cases inanimate objects can be employed to complete a task as obviously it means 'put to use'.

P11 of the BR3 (my emphasis): "If you are applying as an au pair: A letter from the family you are staying with giving details of your employment."

But this form contains sections for teachers, airport workers etc. (who no-one would dispute are employees) as well as au pairs and it doesn't have any bearing on employment status.

I agree with foxinsocks about preparing for a potentially high turnover. It is in fact my hiring strategy. I have an aupair handbook with timetables, local info etc, checklists for the induction, handover etc, so I can move between aupairs easily.

Build in a 3-week probation period. It should become apparent within the first week whether it is going to work out (you get better with experience at sussing this out). Keep a close eye and be quite proactive at pointing out nicely if you would like them to do things differently. If not working, then move them out quickly. Re-hire.

A lot of whether it works out depends on the aupair's attitude and maturity. If they have the right personality, it does not matter they don't come with all the skills - that can be taught.

Sometimes, in a bad run, you get a chain of duds. Don't agonise. Move on. hth.

I think don't forget that you are going from someone (the nanny) who is qualified to look after the children (normally by experience) to someone who might be a stroppy teenager who might feel more like another child (to you) at first.

Don't underestimate that when you make the switch.

If you do overnights often, I wouldn't anticipate doing those early on until you are happy the person can provide the level of care you need.

I have seen lots of people struggle with au pairs and ultimately, end up with quite a high turnover. I'm not saying this will happen to you but just to be prepared.

I think it was Treeesa who pointed out the BR3 form a few months back... though could have been someone else.

Form BR3 (PDF) See section 5 where it states the working time limitations, get 2 days off per week, get a room and paid allowance, must be placed with English speaking family.

So if an au-pair needs to complete a BR3 to enter the country, then does that then mean they are not an employee? Thus if an au-pair does not need a BR3, does that then make them an employee - as they are a worker in the same way as anyone else coming to the UK to work? I know it's not going to be clear cut... but would the BR3 form make any difference to how someone (an HMRC Status Officer, employment tribunal, immigration officer) may look at the case if having to decide if someone was, or was not to be considered as a Worker.

Hmmm maybe more like £100-£200 a week - it's a while ago I worked that out!

Ties in well with this table of student living costs.

Wow, £1,000 a month for room and board is a lot, although the principle is correct. I think that £75-£150 a week is about right.

Well done Frakkin, how about the European Committee on Au Pair Standards and the International Au Pair Association, both based in the Netherlands.

My first live in nanny job nearly 6 years ago I worked that, got less so yeah, I would and did work for that kind of money. I had no childcare qualifications then or much experience and it was a break I needed. Blondes I think got £90 a week in her first job after qualifying. I'm now a teacher and don't have £200 left over after rent, bills, food etc! Besides most jobs for 18 year olds are 40 hours at, what, just over £5 an hour gross so they're not even making £200net. It's commensurate with their (nonexistent) training and experience. The salary hike for the first few years of experience in nannying is really quite disproportionate! I doubled my weekly rate in 3 years from that live in job but so many aspriring nannies say how hard it is to get into childcare with no training or experiences and then won't take jobs cos they want to earn what better qualified more experienced candidates do.

Obviously someone with a couple of years experience and/or a qualification is going to get more but look at jobs around at the moment. Jobs demanding quals and 5 years exp are only paying £300net live in.

In any case, as I demonstrated, even £250 a week which is recommended for a newly qualified nanny isn't much above the proposed hourly rate. And now I'll stop hijacking but I maintain au pairs aren't disproportionately badly paid.

I think one problem is that each country has different rules/ regulations regarding an au-pairs status/ hours/ visas etc...

newnameold topic - I think you could easily get an au-pair who would cover overnights for you/ adapt for your schedule. At £95 a week this is a good price for an au-pair in this country i believe (some pay £60).
I think if you pay that wage and offer the travel, gym..etc that you said you will find it a lot easier to find one. I have forgotten if you have mentioned but also location is a pull factor.

And regarding paying £200 for a first time nanny, would you work for that? probably 11-12 hours a day, 5 days a week, plus 1/2 nights babysitting, 55-60+ hours a week??

Well peekaboo still seem to place Turkish au pairs and their advice on visas links to an out of date page so they're even more dubious than Universal.

I am going to e-mail ACAS myself. If they are there to advise on employer/employee relations then surely they know who falls under their remit. Universal say they specifically asked about au pairs so we'll see what comes back. I also plan to contact the UKBA, HMRC and would welcome suggestions of other organisations.

Without trying to sound sarcastic but this does sound like he spoke to her, and she spoke to him and he said..!

So why is the information from the web site of Universal Au Pairs considered correct.?

Information from other au pair agencies state otherwise. Why didn't you choose any other au pair agency - Look at peekaboo or a2z au pairs

Universal Au Pairs is a misleading page anyway. Apart from defining what an au pair and a nanny is initially (and there are mistakes in this first part). The information for the rest of the page then lumps both types of childcarer together based on a conversation with ACAS.

The UK government recognises the British Au Pair Association as being the appropriate body to contact regarding the au pair programme in this country. The information on their web site is consistent across reputable au pair agencies - that au pair placements are a cultural exchange - and contradicts what Universal says about employment status.

ACAS look after employees and employers.. Why should they have involvement in international cultural exchange programmes.

Since the MN thread from an au pair host who was being threatened with court action from her former su pair over pay for her 'notice' and untaken holiday I have thought it very sensible to treat au pairs as 'live in mothers helps' whatever the case law may or may not support. Giving an au pair a contract, paying for the legal minimum of holiday and treating them as an employee in no way stops the au pair from enjoying the cultural exchange, but it gives peace if mind that when au pair leaves she will not be able to walk into the nearest CAB and be advised that she is owed anything.

To back up mranchovy Universal Au Pairs contacted ACAS who said au pairs were definitely employees. If ACAS says they are then I'm inclined to believe them.

Better safe than sorry in any case and by doing this au pairs don't get taken for granted - it makes their status a lot clearer and needn't detract from the cultural exchange aspect. THAT is about the host family's attitude.

I wonder how much people would expect a first time nanny with no qualification and limited experience to earn? Nannyjob are quoting 16 year old mother's helps as earning £50-60 pwn rising to £140 pwn so I think £200 for a totally unqualified, inexperienced person doing a nanny job is not too far off the mark and it was a nice round number. If we take £220 net though it makes it even nicer for a 55 hour week as it comes out to exactly £4 an hour, compare to £3 an hour the au pair would get, or £3.80 on the OP's proposed work schedule. £250, which is the oft-quoted figure for a QUALIFIED nanny, is £4.50 an hour based on the 55 hour week.

You as an employer could administer payroll, especially if you wanted to pay over where they come in for NI but not pay tax as an employer needn't then make any deductions, it's just a record of how much was paid to make it a qualifying year for NI purposes. Deductions aren't made until you hit £110 per week. I've definitely seen people mentioning it on here before as being very simple to do yourself.

What you've done is taken this court case and extrapolated something that hasn't actually been established.

or put another way

2+2=5

The court was only testing the conditions laid down in the 1980 ruling on Turkish workers. It was not testing any other conditions i.e. to determine if the person had been enjoying cultural exchange, if the person had been attending English classes, if the person had enjoyed enough free time off, if the person was only paid pocket money, if the person had been joining in with family activities etc.

Sorry NewNameOldTopic for hijacking also - but your question about getting an au pair is being answered with information that is unfounded. Maybe I'll set up another thread to carry on that debate.

NewNameOldTopic, apologies for hijack.

On a more practical note, we have found good and bad au pairs and nannies from Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia but the one thing that has been consistent is that all the bad ones were recruited over the telephone. Now European flights are so cheap, we always fork out for a flight over for a trial weekend.

Where? Extracts from previous link...

31 ... According to the description given, those activities display the characteristics necessary to enable, in principle, those who perform them to be regarded as 'workers' ...

...

33 It follows that the characteristics of the jobs held by the three Turkish nationals ... [satisfy the condition of] being in legal employment.

34 The question nevertheless arises whether, in cases where Turkish nationals ... have au pair or student status, they are thereby precluded from the status of workers ...

35 In that regard, it should first be pointed out that a social objective pursued through granting leave to enter as students or as au pairs, together with the related right to work, does not, of itself, take away the lawful character of the activities performed by the persons concerned and, consequently, does not prevent them from being regarded as 'duly registered as belonging to the labour force' of the host Member State ...

45 Provided that the conditions referred to in paragraphs 27 to 30 of the present judgment are met and provided, in particular, that the genuineness of the work performed by the Turkish nationals in question is confirmed, the fact that they have entered as students in order to pursue a course of studies or as au pairs with the aim of mastering the language of the host Member State is immaterial.

...

Treeesa you need to understand that the way law works is that although these rulings were made in the specific case before the court (which related to the immigration status of Turkish students and an au pair), a subsequent court (of equal or lower precedence) looking at similar circumstances will follow the same arguments.

So whilst in this particular case the UK immigration authority was trying to deny the au pair a particular right which is afforded to workers in the UK on the basis that an au pair has some different status, and the ECJ said that was wrong, if someone goes to an Employment Tribunal (or the Court of Appeal, or the ECJ) and tries to deny an au pair some other right which is afforded to workers in the UK on the basis that they have some different status, the judgement should follow that precedent.

Finally, I am aware of the provisions of the 1969 Council of Europe agreement. Unsurprisingly many of the provisions of this agreement have been superceded. For instance...

'Any contracting party may declare that it reserves the right to consider that the term "person placed au pair" shall apply only to females.'

Try relying on that in court!

Newname, I'd go for an aupair from western europe. That way, no immigration issues and their English can be quite good, especially the Scandinavians. You test them through emails and in a phone call before you actually offer them the role.

I don't bother with aupairs with poor English, especially poor aural comprehension, because I am out of the house most of the time and need to be able to give instructions quickly (just before I leave) or over the phone.

Whilediscussing salary and thresholds..

Some more advice I was given before..

If you pay £100 or more per week then your 'au pair' won't be recognised as an au pair by immigration authorities.