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.

Jacks so your violin teacher example (better than the plumber one I agree) implies you think the op was right to do what she did, is that the case?

I think unless you have been in the position of trying to live off benefits you wouldn't have any idea how difficult it probably was for that mum to pay you. I have been in that position so I absolutely would not have expected her to pay all or even part of it. Of course she paid up, it's called pride and not wanting people to know how difficult it is. She probably died inside when she got yr request for the monies "owed" ☹️

So which other businesses should give her money?

But that's all an assumption, Lulu!

And it's also called paying your debts! All we know about how she felt about it was the bit where OPs says that she knew there would be a balance to pay!

I tell you what we should do Stealth Get all the self employed MNers to donate £5... that would be the moral, ethical, the right thing to do!

I'll start... if the LP will give me her bank details....

Oh! We already had one of those threads this week, didn't we?

Are you a charity? No? Then you are entitled to be paid for your work, and that includes the notice period. The mother's income has got bugger all to do with it.

Stealth

Yes, I do. OP has a contract with her client and the notice period is specified in it. Her client was happy with the contract, presumably, as she used OPs service. In addition, OP was happy to provide CM service for the notice period. Her client chose not to use it (as she was going to visit family, I think).

I'm on benefits, should I go into Tesco and tell the person at the checkout to let me go with a full trolley of food because it's "nice" and "compassionate"? No, they would laugh and tell me where to go.

No, I personally wouldn't claim for work I hadn't done.

Unless they were twats.

Lulu

So what other services or products should OPs client (and others in a similar position) not have to pay for? Perhaps the local shop should not expect her to pay for shopping?

I say again- the OP was happy to provide the service for the notice period. Her client CHOSE not to use it as she wanted to visit relatives. She could have given notice earlier, thus avoiding the problem altogether.

I have to pay DD's music tutor if we don't give enough notice about lessons she can't attend (as specified in our contract) even though DD will not have had the lesson. Similar with our riding instructor. And my hairdresser. Rightly so, they have put aside the time to provide the service and if I haven't stuck to my side of the contract, I have to pay for it.

I expect those I contract to stick to their side of the agreement and I fully expect to be held to the same standards, regardless of whether they can/I think they can "afford" to lose the money I owe them or not.

Some of you will be giving money for Red Nose Day, Syrian appeals, the famine in Sudan etc yet the idea of letting someone off paying you ( for a service you didn't provide) seems to cause anger .
The mum used free hours so which is provided be the government to help people like her. Do people think free hours is the wrong use of money then?

I wouldn't have done it.

All these comparisons of plumbers and violin teachers are thoroughly dim witted. The mother in this story was not accustomed to paying the bill. And as far as we know would not have anticipated this charge.

Dread

But the OP may not have been able to fill the place, so would be out of pocket. The OP was happy to provide the service for the notice period- which was as stated in the contract and which her client was aware of (or should have been if she wasn't). Her client CHOSE not to use that service as she wanted to visit relatives instead. She could have given notice earlier- 4 weeks is the minimum. She could have given notice with, say, 8 weeks to go. Thus avoiding the whole thing.

The OP is not running a charity. This is her job. And the government childcare scheme does not change the fact that the OPs contract is not with the government- it is with her client. That has nothing to do whether it is a good use of state funds.

Assuming her income is £7.5k and if you earn £40k, £160 to you is worth ~£850 to her. Every £1 you earn, she "earns" 20p. It's actually a lot more complicated, cause you have taxes and mortgage but she probably has very little savings, but if you're trying to imagine how much it would affect her, it would affect her about as much as if someone asked you for £850 and you didn't have any savings. YOU ARE WELL WITHIN YOUR RIGHT TO CHARGE HER/ KEEP THE MONEY, but that might help you visualise things.

Majestic

But she did know the notice period was 4 weeks, though. Or should have as it was in the contract she signed with the OP. OP has said she was at university, has now qualified in a professional qualification and is looking for a job. So she is well educated and should have had the sense to make herself aware of her obligations. She also will be accustomed to paying some bills, I would have thought, so not an alien concept.

Nor does it change the fact that she could have used the service OP was providing (and thus avoided charges) but chose to visit relatives instead.

YANBU IMO it's standard practice for childminders to charge a notice period. The parent could have used the place during the notice period, its their choice whether or not they do. Childminders, like any business, can waive charges as a good will gesture but that doesn't pay the bills so isn't always an option.

However, you will be in breach of the rules (which are Very Unreasonable) set by your Local Authority and the government as the free funding must be available entirely free of charge you need to check the agreement you have with your Local Authority. There are lots of rules which make providing "free" childcare unaffordable for both childminders and nurseries. Have you seen the Champagne Nurseries for Lemonade Funding campaign, they've put a complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority about the Government's 'price-fixing' of the childcare market.

Isn't it possible that the mother in question could have been a bit more on top of notice periods, transfer opportunities etc and avoided this entirely and then the OP would have been able to slot in a new charge and not be out £160?

I agree that for the OP to waive the fee would have been a kind thing for her to do, i.e. very few people would actually do it including the OP's creditors.

Yanbu, you are a business and so you charged what your business was owed.

But some compassion and kindness could have gone a long way especially as you weren't actually looking after the child.... Maybe half so that you got something out of it and so would she. In your position I wound not have personally taken the money but I guess I'm not business minded...!

Joff the ops HOUSEHOLD income is 40k. Presumably the op earns about 20k

People are talking as if 'its a business' are the laws of physics or something. You run a business as you see fit - it's your business. There is a sense on this thread that childminder = woman = taken advantage of. Maybe this is true. Maybe we (unfairly) expect women to behave more ethically. How about getting men in business to behave more like women in business? Instead of assuming that the decent way of doing things is to be avoided because it is only expected of women; how about expecting it of men too?

I agree if the op had filled the place the fee should have beenwaived

Good point me ri.
However I still think the posters telling the op to think about the other woman and act ethically etc wouldn't be saying this if the woman had cancelled a violin teacher at short notice. Or paid a deposit at a restaurant which she'd then lost as she changed her mind.

You were within your rights to charge her for the work that you didn't do, but I think you were very, very harsh to do so.

It's really hard for a single parent on benefits of you didn't have the little girl then I think you should let her off, if you did and you was doing the work then maybe asking her to pay the £160 off each week would have been a good idea. I think let the funding pay you for the first weeks notice and still hopefully have a good relationship with the mum x