Nanny turned into Nanny for hell and a nutter (long sorry)

[scrummummy]

Have posted in childcare but thought I'd get more traffic here. Help

My DH sacked the nanny on wed, it was a last straw type moment. Many things led up to it ie taking them to her house every day, not telling who the children were coming into contact with and only find out from DD1 (5) or what DD2(3) said (ish). Going to McD every day and buying them chocolate and ice cream (ice cream is health cos it contains calcium was the answer) every day, even though we specifically asked for this not to happen. Slightly more important was late taking to and picking up for school (sometimes 30mins - 1hour late take and pick up). Finally, last two straws, spent Tuesday in hairdressers get hair cut coloured and washed with DD2 in the buggy for the whole time. Last straw, was on Wednesday left the house with no keys, didn't inform me until 1 hour before school pick-up - to my yahoo email while I was at work didn't phone my mobile or work number, didn't phone DH mobile or work number, I was lucky I checked my email during my late lunch. I immediately phoned her repeatedly with no answer. So left work to get to school for pick up, called DH, he left work cos I asked him to sack her there and then, so that she couldn't make up excuses and try to talk me out of it, he's strong at this than me.

Thanks if you've read this far, this is now when the "fun" starts.

She had left her bike at our house. My DH told her to come and collect it in an hours time, giving me the opportunity to get home and calm down. She didn't come and collect it. That evening DH rung her ask when she was going to collect the bike and she said the following day.

I'm at home the following day to look after DD1 & 2 as we now no-longer have child care. I asked DH to put the bike outside in front gated garden so I wouldn't have to talk to her when she turned up to collect it.At lunchtime I saw someone who looked very much like her take the bike.

Following day DH is at home looking after the children and a Taxi arrives, driver says he's come to collect a bike, DH says its been taken. Next DH gets a call from the police, making an enquiry on behalf of the Nanny as to where her bike is. While this is going on at home I'm getting email's demanding money for the bike. DH explains to the Police Officer that the bike was taken the previous day, by he assumed the Nanny.

Overnight I get more and more weirder emails demanding more money for the bike as DH has either stolen it or put it in the bin, like the keys she claimed she couldn't find (we have three sets of keys on the mantelshelf, for her to take).

So after reading the overnight emails, DH contacts the police to discuss the matter. Later today a Police Sargent turns up at the door asking for the bike, DH invites him in shows that we have no bike, goes over all of the above with the PS. Show him the emails, PS talks to the Nanny (who has given him a different story) comes back to us and tells us that he has explained to her that there is (in his words) no case to answer and will only file an incident report and sends her on her way.

So WTF do we do if she turns in to a "From Hell" nanny as we have a new nanny starting in Jan and we are worried that she might do something reckless.

Help/ word of wisdom has any one dealt with a situation similar to this?
Can tell you more about the madness if you want to have more shits and giggle

OP I am very sorry you've had to deal with all this shit on top of the stress of going back to work after recovering from breast cancer. The ex-nanny sounds like a piece of work and I think you've been given a rough ride on this thread earlier on but hope you feel there's been some advice that helps. ShinyBlackGrape's advice is very sensible and in my view, legally correct on the basis of the info you have given. If you do need further advice ACAS are very helpful as SGB already suggested and this link gives some other places to try for further legal advice but hopefully you won't need it: etclaims.co.uk/getting-advice/. KatieMistletoe has already helpfully pointed out that your nannytax service includes some form of legal advice (I wouldn't know - don't have a nanny!) but if you have household insurance (god forbid you need it but worst case scenario) some policies provide for legal advice too so do please check before paying or choosing a solicitor.

My post from hereon in is going to be of no practical help to you at all so please ignore the rest!

KatieMistletoe You seemed to take exception to SGB giving legal advice which didn't concur with yours and the fact that you are dispensing your advice on the employment law board does actually give me cause for concern, based on what you have been posting on this thread. You seem very keen to announce your expertise and have been quite aggressive in defending confusing and legally incorrect advice you have given. My reasons for concern are as follows (you appeared to want Higgles to give you a blow by blow account of his/her disagreement with you so I have skipped ahead and done this in advance):

1. Despite saying several posts in: "It may be possible to minimise this retrospectively but I'd need more details before I could advise further" your first post giving advice is framed in very definitive terms, (I would go so far as to say it's scaremongering) and state that:

"You have put yourself in a stupidly vulnerable position. You have dismissed her without following the legal process and now her property which was in your care has disappeared.

However badly she has behaved she is your EMPLOYEE and as such has all the employment rights that come with that status. She has been dismissed without a disciplinary hearing which she has the right to be accompanied to and no option to appeal. Did you give her contractual notice?

Don't be surprised if she takes further action against you."

You did not stop to ask questions (or notice that the OP had said she had only returned to work in September and ask further questions), you launched straight into "advising further" using absolute terms without stopping to establish material facts such as length of service. Not good practice at all.

Indeed you say this is not good practice yourself by later stating: "I don't actually think you are a lawyer. No employment lawyer I know makes sweeping statements without getting all the facts and even then it's all framed with "maybe" "possibly" "potentially"."

I didn't see you put "You may have put yourself in a stupidly vulnerable position. It is possible you have dismissed her without following the legal process..." But then maybe you feel that not being a lawyer (chippy much?) you don't have to follow your own advice to lawyers as to how they should be framing their advice?

1. After Laquitar draws your attention to the fact that OP only returned to work in September, you continued to give advice that the OP should have given a written warning containing the allegations and outline the hearing and appeal process. You then say "There is one circumstance where instant dismissal is allowed that might be relevant to your situation" but fail to throw any light on what ONE circumstance may permit instant dismissal (nb. usually called "summary dismissal"). Maybe you were thinking of gross misconduct? Who knows. You then go on to say: "I am not saying you do not have grounds (I would have dismissed her too) but you have to cover your arse and do things properly." How about enlightening the OP as to what those grounds are instead of regurgitating study notes on unfair dismissal, written warnings, hearings and appeals? Advice has to be relevant to the factual circumstances, which you seem pretty happy to ignore in favour of giving advice, asking questions later.

3."Yes, there are grounds for instant dismissal, as I have alluded to, but all that happens is the disciplinary process happens afterwards. I am happy to point you to the legislation and practical advice." Why do you think an employer has to follow a disciplinary process (hearing & appeal) after summary dismissal for gross misconduct when the employee does not have the requisite length of service? This is incorrect.

1. Following ShinyBlackGrape's very practical and legally correct advice pointing out the OP should ensure all monies due under the contract (payment to termination date plus payment in lieu for any accrued holiday, sit tight on the notice) to avoid as much future hassle as possible without being much more out of pocket, you then stop advising the OP that she should hold a hearing post dismissal and instead say: "I think it's possible to minimise the damage by sending a letter outlining what has happened and why and ensuring she has been paid everything she has to be and that she has been paid proper notice and holidays." Seems that ShinyBlackGrape might just have a point then? Not very gracious and you appear to want to defend your previously incorrect advice on the basis that English law is confusing because of common and statutory law working side by side. Yes, there are many, many, grey areas in the law unfortunately. Being able to claim unfair dismissal with less than one year's service where the employee does not enjoy some form of protected status is not one of them and is very clearly defined in statute. I am yet to see a case which manages to overrule this position.

1. Despite SBG in no way making a specific point on the quality of your advice, and just giving his/her own advice you feel the need to say: "No need to patronise me grape. As I said up thread I have a qualification in employment law and I'm a regular poster in employment issues where you'll see I have a thorough understanding of unfair dismissal legislation." and "Erm, hackmum grape says she is an employment lawyer. I am qualified to give employment law advice as it happens. So why not mind your own business?" Well no doubt you will be telling me to mind my own business too. However, in view of the fact that you feel yourself "qualified to give employment law advice" I would like to make the following point.

"Qualified to give employment law advice" is pretty ambiguous. Under the Compensation Act 2006 the government tried to regulate and make accountable "employment law advisors" who are not lawyers due to their previous track record. As a barrister I'm accountable to the Bar Council and if ShinyBlackGrape is a solicitor s/he is regulated by the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority - negligent advice can directly impact on our right to earn a living by providing legal representation and advice and on our professional indemnity costs. Codes of Conduct apply to both professions which we must adhere to, and through the Compensation Act, the Rules for the Conduct of Unauthorised Persons was set up (which includes non lawyers who are authorised to give employment law advice), including an authorisation scheme run by the Ministry of Justice. Presumably then, when you say you are not a lawyer but you are "qualified to give employment law advice" you are authorised by the MoJ and are aware of the Rules of Conduct you should be following. In view of that I am actually very shocked by the quality and tone of your advice on here and the reason for me posting at such length on this is that I feel it is dangerous should someone act on your advice and your assertions that you are "qualified to give employment law advice."

However, if you have done a course, no matter how prestigious (LLM Employment or even a PhD) to help you better understand employment law in the context of your job in Human Resources you are not "qualified to give employment law advice" if you are not authorised by the MoJ and you are are therefore misrepresenting yourself. You may have a qualification in employment law which helps you to advise the company you work for as an HR advisor (but not to give advice to the general public or other employers apart from your employer), but you do not pay for professional indemnity insurance and any Code of Conduct you follow, if at all, may be something from an organisation like the Institute of Personnel Development etc.

etclaims.co.uk/2007/12/unqualified-representatives/

1. I do not remotely think you are thick. I do however think you are confused, despite a qualification in employment law, on the area of employment law and would suggest that if you are not authorised to give advice by the MoJ you do not refer to yourself as "qualified to give employment law advice".

Well I don't really know what to say. I feel like I've been taken apart and personally attacked. I'm not sure what I've done to warrant this but I will point out a few things in response to TheRuder's post. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother but I feel I'm being misrepresented and I have a professional life outside of the board and my posting name is known in RL.

At no point do I say the OP's nanny has a case for unfair dismissal. Not once, although several people seem to be under the impression I did.

Yes, I did post an initial very brief reply and then come back a few minutes (less than 3 minutes as it happens) and ask for more detail. I think that's fair enough. This is AIBU, not the CAB.

1. KatieMistletoe You seemed to take exception to SGB giving legal advice which didn't concur with yours Not so. I took exception to having the unfair dismissal law explained to me in a way I felt was patronising. With hindsight I realise that grape was trying to be helpful. She seemed to think I was saying the OP had a case for unfair dismissal - I didn't, although I did make reference to the existence of automatic dismissal as part of a discussion with nannynick but that was a separate comment. I did disagree with one point in grape's advice but I did not share it on the thread because it's not a point of law so much as just mitigating a risk and that is the point on notice.

1. You seem very keen to announce your expertise and have been quite aggressive in defending confusing and legally incorrect advice you have given I have not given any advice. I have repeatedly said there is not enough information to come to a conclusion and to seek independent, specific advice. I did offer to advise further if provided more information but did not receive more so did not post any advice. I mentioned my qualification to demonstrate that it was not necessary to explain the unfair dismissal rule to me.

1. your first post giving advice is framed in very definitive terms You mean my first post at Sat 17-Dec-11 23:11:35. Where I read the OP and the rest of the thread and had the impression the nanny had been with the OP for a while and then things had gone wrong? It is then almost a full three minutes later at Sat 17-Dec-11 23:14:06 I ask how long the nanny has been employed because I realise that it is not clear from the OP.

1. You did not stop to ask questions (or notice that the OP had said she had only returned to work in September and ask further questions), you launched straight into "advising further" using absolute terms without stopping to establish material facts such as length of service. Not good practice at all. That is incorrect. I asked just under 3 minutes later when I realised it was not clear. I then make much reference later to needing more facts. Bearing in mind this was an AIBU thread, not employment issues or similar.

1. After Laquitar draws your attention to the fact that OP only returned to work in September Actually I asked* and just because the OP returned in September does not mean that is when the nanny started. The OP had already alluded to being ill when I posted. The OP herself came back to clarify 10 weeks.

1. "There is one circumstance where instant dismissal is allowed that might be relevant to your situation" but fail to throw any light on what ONE circumstance may permit instant dismissal Because this is AIBU, not employment issues. If the OP wants advice she can ask for it. She didn't ask so I didn't say any more.

1. "Yes, there are grounds for instant dismissal, as I have alluded to, but all that happens is the disciplinary process happens afterwards. I am happy to point you to the legislation and practical advice." Why do you think an employer has to follow a disciplinary process (hearing & appeal) after summary dismissal for gross misconduct when the employee does not have the requisite length of service? This is incorrect. I did word that badly I should not have written disciplinary process because it's not the full process but there is still a process that should be followed. What I was trying to say (and it was very late) was that I will point the OP in the right direction, indeed that is exactly what I did say. That is not advice. There are several factors in the OP which are not clear cut enough to say what happened is even gross misconduct for summary dismissal. Forgetting keys on the face of it does not sound enough, but as I keep saying we just don't know enough.

1. Following ShinyBlackGrape's very practical and legally correct advice pointing out the OP should ensure all monies due under the contract (payment to termination date plus payment in lieu for any accrued holiday, sit tight on the notice) to avoid as much future hassle as possible without being much more out of pocket, you then stop advising the OP that she should hold a hearing post dismissal and instead say: "I think it's possible to minimise the damage by sending a letter outlining what has happened and why and ensuring she has been paid everything she has to be and that she has been paid proper notice and holidays. I did not say the OP should hold a hearing post dismissal. I also did not say what grape said was incorrect. I later posted that I did not agree with all of her advice but did not express what exactly - but I've already clarified that here.

1. Your point about advice and what I am or am not qualified to give you state but you do not pay for professional indemnity insurance and any Code of Conduct you follow, if at all, may be something from an organisation like the Institute of Personnel Development. You do not know what insurance I have! Nor what professional body I'm a member of! I have expressly stated I am not a lawyer but there are plenty of people working in the law who give advice on process, best practice and minimise risk who are not lawyers. You are incorrect in your assertions.

So, to be clear, I am being castigated for giving incorrect advice (which I did not) and not giving enough advice? Can't win either way can I?!

Damn how sad....Katie was just trying to help. Regardless if it was 100% correct or not. Someone who will take legal actions or any actions based on public forum without checking them first is a fool. Just hope she won't stop helping people on this forum..

I realise I missed the bit about saying grape might not be a lawyer - I'm sorry if I offended her, I was feeling unfairly attacked and I over-reacted while trying (clumsily) to point out that we can all say we are one thing or another and people should get independent advice specific to their situation. Anyone who gets their employment advice solely from Mumsnet is very foolish.

I probably won't be posting about employment again. I feel sick at all the horrible things that have been said and the way I have been painted here. I'll stick to RL.

KM I originally posted just as I was about to leave home because I was concerned about the way the advice on the thread was going. It is very hard to give advice sometmes on these long convoluted threads where it is easy to miss a vital piece of information or it may bnot have been provided. Also people who post on a forum like this are likely to be very emotional and upset as this is not the obvious port of call and you cannot always predict the reposnse you will get ( a lot of people have quite strangely used the thread to have a go at the OP when she clearly has had a really terrible time )

I tend to shy away from direct advice unless it is in my fields of expertise or just to flag upthe issues that need to be looked at. I do however usually post if it is

1. A married woman being advised to chuck her husbands stuff out and change the locks ( this happens really often)

1. Dangerous dogs - usually to flag up the issues as it it a total minefield!

I know more people who have won Dangerous Dogs cases because the wrong procedures were followed by the authorities than on the merits.

1. Employment issues when something needs doing urgently or there is something really concerning someone.

On a forum like this most advice should really be flagged up with a direction to get some proper advice face to face asap and best of all with some links about where to go.

higgle I agree with all of your last post which I why I have repeatedly said we cannot advise without further information and that the OP should contact NannyTax who provide legal advice as part of her contract.

I have not advised the OP one way or another. I have joined in with some general discussion about dismissal and the different types and I have stressed the OP has to do things properly and to get advice.

I haven't had a go at the OP. I have pointed out she has responsibilities as an employer which the OP has bravely admitted is difficult to reconcile (and fair enough. It is hard when it's your children).

I don't think I have deserved some of the comments or accusations that have been thrown at me.

I've just come back to this thread.

Katie - FYI, I didn't disappear. I just had other things to do yesterday (as I presumed you had when you didn't respond immediately in relation to any of my posts) and, frankly, I was pretty unimpressed with your postings on the thread. I had made the points that I wanted to make and I'm more than happy that they are legally correct. I have no interest in getting in to further debate with you on that point.

Barracuda has made any further points that I would want to make generally. However, I think it is interesting that both of us who are legally qualfied are both of the belief that your advice was not correct. The fact that you don't appear to be able to see or accept that certainly raises an issue in itself.

I'm pretty new to Mumsnet and I certainly don't intend to hang around on the employment law part of the site dispensing advice all day or monitoring the advice of others. I don't have the time. However, I'm concerned about any self-appointed "expert" taking issues with properly qualified posters posting advice that differs to theirs and then making ridiculous and unwarranted personal attacks to try and discredit that advice rather than either just backing off or or admitting that perhaps their original advice was wrong.

In any event, this is a public forum and posters are entitled to post their thoughts and view even if they differ with yours. Happy to have a debate with you or anyone else as to my views. However, on a professional basis - i.e. I don't (and don't expect anyone in my team to) accuse others who don't agree with me or them of essentially being liars.

shinyblackgrape I did not say you did disappear. I have also not disagreed with what you said. I have explained what I said and why. At no point have I said the OP's nanny has a case for unfair dismissal.

Incidentally I still have not offered any advice other than for the OP to contact NannyTax and to be aware of her responsibilities and liabilities as an employer.

I stated where my knowledge came from twice. Once to clarify where posters were assuming I am a lawyer. I am not. And once to explain why it is not necessary to explain unfair dismissal to me.

If anyone would like to read my comments in the context of the full thread and still have an issue that I am acting in any way inappropriately please report me to MNHQ. I will not be posting about employment or in Employment Issues again. Not because I have done anything wrong but because I feel so upset about the way I have been singled out, misquoted, libelled and defamed when all I have tried to do is be helpful and supportive to the OP.

I'm leaving this thread now. I hope those that are willing and able to give the OP support continue to do so as I feel for her.

Gosh. Katie tried so hard to help OP even when many of us were not believing the op. It was difficult for her to help as it was a very confusing thread with many unanswered questions, contradictions, assumptions from the rest of us etc. At least she tried. A polite correction/disagreement from you and 'thank you' from the op would be nice imo instead of all this.

Well the whole post was re bike. Katie was just trying to remind op that she's also employer and have to do things right way. Just a quick reminder I guess because she's hr person. And in my opinion she did the right thing. Regardless of what happened between the op and nanny she was an employer and have to do things right. I feel cvy said about this I am more important, I know more... Even if you think her advice wasn't 100% correct you could tell her that a bit more polite. she was treated like some naughty child corrected by her teacher...

Only read to page 3 but unless it has been covered.

You can sack anyone who has been employed for less than 12 months. You do not even have to give a reason but if you paid nanny through an Umbrella company then she is classed as a contractor. As a contractor, you can end the contract at any time, regardless of how long they have been with you.

Okay ChristmasFuckers you think any help offered, even if incorrect and potentially unnecessarily costly if followed, is better than no advice. I veer towards the a little knowledge is a dangerous thing side of the line and feeling a responsibility to check that giving advice based on my line of work is correct before giving it out (and where I am not sure, heavy use of disclaimers, inviting people with more knowledge than myself to comment on my advice) especially where I mention my line of work because then I am inviting the person I am advising to place more reliance on my advice than they may otherwise have done. That is what I feel I have to do to fulfil my professional obligations because keeping my job requires it and because my conscience wouldn't permit otherwise.

Where was I impolite please? I'm not going to learn unless I'm told.

Gosh - what unpleasant posts on this thread to Kate.

I don't think Kate or SBG's advice did differ that much - SGB just seemed determined to patronise Kate and ignore the fact that Kate's advice had (ok - after 3 minutes as Kate admitted) been qualified by trying to clarify the precise facts. As a consequence of Kate's appropriate questioning, SBG was lucky enough to be in possession of the full facts in providing his/her advice but it's a bit cheeky to criticise Kate for giving an initial warning that once you are in an employee/employer situation you need to be a bit more careful than OP has perhaps been.

I also entirely agree with Kate's comment that SGB does not sound like any solicitors I deal with who always triple review their advice to make sure it says "should" or "may" instead of will

Anyway - re the bike OP, I don't think you owe her a thing. She chose not to collect it when she was asked to do so and you kindly stored it safely overnight. You have no obligation to her to store it/protect it for her, you're not a storage company FFS.

If disagreeing with another poster's opinion without once calling them a liar or attacking them personally AIBU would vanish in a puff of lovely harmony. Katie can say and give what advice she wants but if as she states, her MN posting name is known in RL and possibly to people in her career, then she is taking a big risk. I didn't know she had chosen to not be anonymous on MN but if she isn't, the way she behaved on this thread is as much a risk to her as it is to the recipients of such advice.

SarahBumBarer If you think I have been personal towards Katie please report my post and MNHQ will act appropriately.

I've never reported a post in my (MN) life and I don't believe that "unpleasant" (given that this is the word I used) is grounds for reporting anyway nor unfortunately is misrepresenting what someone has said or MN would indeed be a lot briefer, AIBU bunfights in particular.

Damn she does not work for you to be so patronisIng! You are not very busy solicitors if you have a time to boss around people on mn.

another to say that whatever happended re woprk, you left her bike in a place where ti could have been stolen!!!! replace the bike and I am sure she will back off

I'm sorry but I think it was Katies unconsidered and quite rude comments to posters that have caused this thread to go off the rails.

Initially Grapes was only pointing out her legal opinion and Katie decided to take it as a personal attack. "There is no need to patronise me"

Katie then also suggested grapes was a liar.

Up until that point grapes had just tried to give advice.

Katie, I know you were only trying to be helpful to the OP, but I just think if someone else says they are an expert/professional in the same field as you, it is polite to discuss a point, not take it as a personal insult if they give slightly different advice from you.

ChristmasFuckers I never said I was a solicitor. I'm on maternity leave before starting a new job. HTH.

TheRuder to be fair Katie made it clear that she is not a lawyer. OP wouldn't follow her advice blindly. But as a HR person i think her view and opinion is useful, and yours too, and everybody else's etc, imo it is good that we have all sorts of backgrounds here. People with no law qualifications do touch the legal side of a matter quite often, like someone from HR, nannynick from his childcare expert position, me as an ex-nanny etc and i think that's ok as long as you don't pose as a lawyer (which she did not)

P.S. No, lawyers are not hated here, they are useful

Why should the op pay for the bike? The nanny was seen collecting it! She's just being a PITA

Hi all,

We just wanted to point you back in the direction of the OP as this thread seems to have gone somewhat off topic.

Mumsnet is primarily a site for peer-to-peer advice and support. We are lucky in the fact that we have many parents from all walks of life who offer differing opinions on a massive range of topics, making most discussions much more interesting and insightful.

We discourage folks from posting from a professional pov as we cannot vouch for anyone. That said, we do not believe that anyone here has over-stepped that mark but we will be monitoring this thread for any other posts that we feel break our Talk guidelines. Please do report any that you see.

Quicklookbusy, I agree it was Kates bizarre post that sent this thread right off the rails. Accusing someone of lying!! Flippin eck.