To have asked for £160 from a single mum on income support

[lucindia]

I'm a childminder. I looked after a child for a single mum on income support. She was doing the 15 hours free hours. She phoned to tell me she would be sending her daughter to the local school in 4 weeks time.

So I contacted the funding department to explain that I would no longer be having the child and the date that would start.

They got back to me and said they would only be able to pay the first week of the notice period and the rest would have to be paid for by the parent.

Even though the mum had given me a months notice, I didn't actually have her child at all during that month. The day she text to say she would be going to school in a months time, was the day she stopped coming to me as the Mum was visiting family for a month.

But I was still entitled to be paid for that month. It was also a compulsory notice period.

So I sent a very polite message to the Mum explaining that she would have a balance of £160 to pay as the funding department could only pay 1 weeks notice.

She said that was fine but would need to wait until her income support payment came in the next day and would then send me that. She would send the £60 the following week from her child tax credit.

I thought nothing of it.

I mentioned it in passing to my mother in law (who I get on very well with) and she said she couldn't believe I made her pay £160 when I never even looked after her child for that notice period month and that seeing as my husband and I have a joint income of 40k we could have easily afford to let her off with the £160 which was a lot for a single mum on income support.

I never considered I was doing anything wrong. I'm entitled to be paid for that month and there's a notice period for a reason.

I really like the girls mum and we always had a great relationship when her daughter was with me. She's been with me from before she was 1 as her mum was finishing university.

What do you think. Was I unreasonable to ask for the money?

She's on benefits but qualified in a professional job and job hunting. So does have options.

Of course you should have billed, her non working status is of no concern. Her choice to not work, not yours.

She knew the terms and could have used the childcare if she needed it.

Has anyone explained to me how tbe op isn't out of pocket yet? Yes she didn't have to look after the child but I guess her mortgage provider didn't reduce her mortgage correspondingly

The OP would have been out of pocket, by £160. But apparently everyone but a very few posters think it's quite reasonable that the OP should prioritise someone else above herself and her contractual terms (and I disagree with those who say a court would not enforce them, too) because it's more important to be "nice" or "kind".
This is why people think that they can expect women (and it is women, largely) to roll over and be a doormat. You don't like that you're paid less for being female? Oh, that's okay, because you're being nice in letting off the person from their obligations.

What most of you are saying, reduced to absurdity, is that the OP should accept being paid less, despite the fact that she has a legal right to the money, because she is doing a job that is very largely done by women, which covers a traditionally "woman's" role, and she should therefore not apply basic commercial common sense.

Does no-one else see the problem in that?

Oh, and as someone said upthread, suggesting that OP should be paid less because her family income (I assume husband) is larger takes us right back to 1950. The "little woman" needn't be paid as much as men because her husband earns all the money and so it doesn't matter.

I despair.

hiding you might as well bang your head against a brick wall, OP is being 'mean' apparently. Funny I can't imagine a male accountant, for example, being described as mean for billing a contractually agreed sum. As for a PP talking about corporate responsibility, she's a self employed childminder not Tesco!

Our joint income is just over £40k and while we're ok we certainly can't afford to just give money away. £160 wouldn't put us on the breadline but we'd notice it. Piaster a are assuming a £40k income = plenty of money without having a clue where OP lives or what her outgoings are. Baffling.

The reason some of us are using business analogies is because the OP is running a business!

I assume quite a few of her clients will be receiving funding from the Government. So it is important she ensures she gets all the money she is entitled to, otherwise she could be seriously out of pocket.

My understanding is that going forward with the increase in funded hours, the Government won't be paying nurseries/childminders the full costs so people may find that there are more places not taking funded children on.

The attitude towards childminders on this thread is very sad.

Childminders care for children as a business, not because they want to provide something free for their community. Childminders need to be recognised as Childcare professionals, not just a friendly person who takes in children as a hobby. There seems to be a long way to go.

Who running a business says, oh don't worry about the contract, as you are on benefits? For all we know the mother was totally aware she would be charged and planned accordingly.

I thought about an accountant..but HE wpuld be a pretty crap accountant :o

YANBU. I would dread to be a childminder for this very reason. For some reason there are people that think, because a woman (or man) works form home as a childminder they aren't a real business with the usual business rules including contracts.

We had one ourselves with whom we signed a contract with a one months notice period. We terminated the contract as we had made alternative arrangement, from that point we didn't send our child but we still paid for the one month notice period.

hidingmystatus has it SPOT ON. Woman in a caring profession expected to be 'nice' never mind her own bills and the fact that she took care to set up a professional agreement in connection with a business relationship.

OP YANBU.

As for a PP talking about corporate responsibility, she's a self employed childminder not Tesco!

Sounds like some people don't know what 'corporate' means!

hidingmystatus:

Absolutely. No-one ever expects the man the local garage to repair their car for free 'to be nice'. No-one expects the man doing their tax return to let them off paying 'to be nice'. No-one expects their builder or plumber to do a job for nothing 'to be nice'.

It's women looking after children, largely, who are expected to put empathy above their own interests. When they don't, they are 'mean'.

You didn't actually provide her with any services during that period

Yes, she did. The place was there to be used, the purchaser just didn't use it.

Wow! What a depressing thread.

OP, Stealth, Trifel, et al as another self employed woman... I too would have charged, even though my DH could afford to cover that shortfall. Mainly because I offer a service that the customer pays for. If their circumstances change it is not for me to pick up their financial burden.

I am wondering why the posters who are portraying OP as a miserable, greedy, grabby bitch aren't aiming their ire at the funding dept. After all, it is their system that caused the shortfall, not the OP.

Or why they haven't suggested that the LP should have been better organised, handed in her notice earlier, arranged her holiday better?

As for that LP... she offered a pretty speedy resolution so she seems to have anticipated a shortfall... maybe she wasn't as fucking stupid as some posters seem to think she was... maybe she had no problem paying OP for the service she contracted to use but didn't take up.

Weird that some MNers find it comfortable to insult the intelligence of 2 unknown women. Wonder why? Is it simply to make themselves feel better!

Agree with those saying YANBU.

OP is running a business, not a charity. She had a contract which her client willingly signed. I'm pretty sure most posters would expect OP to uphold her end of the contract by providing the service/hours etc as specified. I imagine OP would get pretty short shrift if she had come on here saying she hadn't kept her side of the contract (e.g. because she couldn't afford it) or had forgotten about x, y.z. She'd be told she had an obligation to uphold her contract, that it is disgraceful and unprofessional not to. Why then is the client exempted from that same responsibility? Do contracts not actually mean anything if you happen to be on a low income?

What else would you extend that to? I wouldn't expect the local builder doing work on my house, or the plumber, electrician or joiner, for example, to do work for free. I think my accountant would be extremely pissed off if I decided I wasn't going to pay him. My daughter has music lessons and if I were to forget to give the specified notice that she can't come to a lesson that day, then I have to pay- even though my daughter hasn't had that lesson. Ditto for our riding instructor. Even my hairdresser specifies they will charge if not given enough notice of cancellation. This is not new or unreasonable!

Not only that, the OP's client could have used the service for the full notice period. She CHOSE not too. She could have given OP notice earlier, thus avoiding hang to pay the shortfall. Yet it is OP being mean? I'd argue her client could have, and should have, planned better to avoid the situation arising if having to pay this money was going to cause significant hardship to her.

I have to say I still don't understand exactly how the mum owes this £160 though and it would be helpful if OP came back and explained how the funding works, and how aware of the regulations the mum was.

The way I've interpreted it as is the £160 is the shortfall for 3 weeks (OP said the funding agency would cover the first week) - so I assume the mother usually pay £53.33 p/w and the funding agency cover the rest?

However if she usually pays nothing and the govt funds it all I don't understand how she can owe money if she doesn't use the service for a month but would have got it free if she had used the service?

OP said that the child could have gone to her for the month of the notice period but the mum chose to take her on holiday. So if she had carried on going to OP instead would she still owe this £160?

Or is it that the child's place at school starts immediately and therefore the funding that would have gone to OP for the month has gone to the school instead (to 'hold' the place) even though the child isn't attending either place because she's on holiday?

It's very confusing!

I still maintain my original position though, that if there is a shortfall for whatever reason OP shouldn't be the one to bear the costs. However confirmation of what the rules are, and how aware the mum was made of them, would be relevant.

The op clearly had a moral dilemma and customer is obviously in a tough position.
Court may enforce it... but payment would have been minimal and if customer offered to settle the debt at £1 a week, the op would have had to take her to court to try to get more and courts would likely say that a proposal to settle the matter had been refused by the service provider and may have wiped the debt all together.
The customer may be flighty like myself and paid even though she couldnt afford it so she doesnt have the stress.
I think I'd have asked her to pay £25 a month or something... afterall, benefits don't give you spare income.

YANBU. It also had nothing to do with the notice period - you would normally have worked during that period. She chose to visit family during that month. It would have been much better if she had given notice another month before. I only think I would pay her back if you did not actually lose any earnings - for example if you filled the time by looking after another child.

it would be helpful if OP came back and explained how the funding works, and how aware of the regulations the mum was. Why is that OPs responsibility? That is between the LP and the funding agency!

She said the LP seemed ready to pay a shortfall but may not have anticipated the actual amount.

Why persist in assuming the LP is too stupid to have understood her obligations?

As for the idea that a court wouldn't enforce.. an online small claims court application would be quick and easy!

I think it's appalling that she asked for it tbh.....the hardship that would have caused will be with the lady for quite some time. Finding childcare fees when your working can be a struggle but when your only income is income support it's even worse. Personally I couldnt have asked for it as my morals and values wouldn't allow me to but everyone is different. Income support is less than £100 per week and CTC is £52 per week per child so in effect she gave her all the money she had. I could not have slept knowing I was doing that to someone who was also supposedly a friend.

That's nice, dear!

Would you expect a plumber to charge a call out fee even if when he got there the problem had sorter itself?
Would you have expected a nursery to charge as per its contract?

You have a business and you are within your rights to take the money and not feel bad about it. That being said DH runs his own business (successfully though we are in no way 'rich' nor ever will we be) and he is the kind of person who would have let this go and not asked for the money. It's one of the reasons I love him. His kindness and compassion.

Mum of
You know you can have £16k of savings and still get benefits?

You are projecting your own situation into this.
The parent asked the OP how much she was still due her. Give her some credit if it's was obvious to get her she haf fees to pay then why is everyone outraged on her behalf.
Just because she was getting funded hours doesnt mean that it was only funded hours anyway. Many settings have funded hours for set times and parents pay the rest. Most local authorities pay far below normal child care rates for funded places and parents wonder why settings have to charge for other hours or lunch etc to recover their costs.

Child minders are not running a charity. Losing £160 would be a huge loss to the cms I know. Why should they get into debt to subsidise others?

Stealth

Yes, if the plumber had been called out (especially out of hours) and travelled to my home I would expect to pay a call out fee.

A similar example would be I have to give notice to my DD's violin tutor- if I don't I have to pay for the lesson, even though DD has not had a lesson. My fault for not giving the specified notice.