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.

Us 'bleeding hearts' (and long may mine bleed and have compassion for other people) are saying that the mother got a very hefty and unexpected fee that she had never had to pay before and which wiped out her benefits for two weeks and, based on that info alone, we are saying that if we could afford it we would waiver it. Especially for a woman and her child who we'd known and cared for for several years. [sic]

And therein lies my bemusement! You, the MIL and other posters seem to find all sorts of need to feel sorry, compassionate, charitable towards a woman who, as far as OP has relayed, had no issue paying a bill.

I find that patronising and keep asking why so many posters find the need to so belittle a woman. Do you all think she is thick as a brick because she is on benefits? Or what?

Personally I think both she and OP did what was needed and some of the posters who have used highly emotional terminology to denigrate the OP need to stop and ponder why you feel the need to belittle 2 women you don't know for making real life choices that differ from your hypothetical ones

[as an aside: Back in the 1980s I was a typeface designer/digitiser, font is the method by which a typeface is delivered, e.g. potato, hot metal, digitally. I a bit anal about the terminology ] .

All the bleeding hearts think they are so kind. They have no idea how disrespectful they are being (same as op mil) by assuming so much about this single mother and her financial situation.

She employed a service. She paid for service. She left service. She fulfilled her contractual obligation. End of story.

I will hazard a guess that the bleeding hearts are not financially secure and have limited or no experience with running a successful business. (Forever living doesn't count! )

I know whenour local authorityy part fund care home places, the contract for private top up has to end at the same time as the local authority one. I am surprised they do not operate the same principle for preschool funding. Op I think if you are going to accept customers on funded hours, you need to bring your contracts with them into line with the local authorities notice periods . you are trying to have youR cake and eat it

No. The rate that the LAs offer for funded nursery places almost inevitably are lower than market rates, and the government (being all-powerful) is not going to entertain business-friendly notice periods.

The OP is providing a childcare service, someone will want the slot.

Yes @BemorePanda!

This: Surely if you are taking children that are funded, and the funding only pays one week notice you need to amend your contract to reflect this. If you can't do that, don't take the govts money and just go for privately paying clients.

I think YABU and mean. There isn't even a question of you having the child as they are on holiday now.

£160 is a massive bill for a parent on benefits.

And this: Also if you are taking a funded child, I'd argue your "standard" contractual terms are varied. The payer only will agree to a weeks paid notice. If you want these contracts THESE are the terms of notice.

Insisting on a months paid notice, and expecting someone on low income to cover the difference, (when they have not ever paid you) because you've chosen an unrealistic way to manage the difference in contracts, is extremely unreasonable.

And mean.

Most people taking up these 2yo places are encouraged to do it by the free place. That is the whole point of them.

--------

Originally I'd have said you weren't being unreasonable but perhaps not applying corporate moral responsibility and so putting business above ethics.

However, @BeMorePanda has it spot on and it's actually your contract itself which is unethical which is why your applying of the contract is wrong in this situation.

And for all those talking 'business'. I run a software development business. We have strict contracts applied to all clients. However, we do let clients off fees in certain circumstances. We had one client who had a nervous breakdown and we waived their fees for a number of months while they got back on their feet. This doesn't mean we're known as a pushover. To the person who said about the childminder getting lots of parents being late and not paying then that suggests a lack of professional boundaries. There is a distinct difference between strong professional boundaries and Corporate Social Responsibility and ethics.

I think the problem really in this case is that the contract itself while seemingly reasonable to the childminder ends up being unreasonable on those using funded places. I can see that a childminder needs the month's notice to fill the space but equally the Government's funding does not allow this and allows only a week's notice. Therefore for funded children a different notice period needs to be found which is fair to both childminder and the person who is receiving free funded childcare and it is agreed that part of this notice period is not one within which childcare would be provided but is the leeway space for the funding gap.

So yes OP YABU to take the money. I think you should take a common sense view and realise the impossible situation the Government's one week notice period puts both of you in and moving forwards you change your contracts but as this situation has arisen highlighting the problem, you should either meet her half way or take the hit on this occasion. Given her and your circumstances, I'd take the £160 loss rather than pass it on to her. This is sensible both in terms of business and in terms of ethics.

Surely if you are taking children that are funded, and the funding only pays one week notice you need to amend your contract to reflect this. Except that is an assumption, OP hasn't said why there was a shortfall... she has said that the LP thought there would be!

Again you are being extremely paternalistic!

We had one client who had a nervous breakdown and we waived their fees for a number of months while they got back on their feet.

Give me a break. Such an emotive red herring. This is not at all the case in this instance. Single mothers health is not in question. Her finances are not in question. The only questions being asked are by op mil that should butt out of ops business affairs and cease to speculate about this single mother's financial situation.

But the relationship between a customer and a software company, and a parent and childminder are totally different. You can't on the one hand expect a childminder to have professional boundaries and display corporate responsibility but on the other hand make arbitrary value judgements on her clients financial situation - where does that end? Let off the lone parent, what about the low income working family who can barely pay the bills but don't be get any benefits? Or the higher earners with huge commuting costs?

It's not the job of the childminder to decide who's deserving of special treatment.

If LP (thanks for acronym Blanche!) gave the 4 weeks notice 4 weeks before she ceased to use the service she wouldn't have had to pay a penny.

Op should have read contract and given four weeks notice. She seems to know this, and has willingly paid for her error.

Should op have speculated and asked for notice three weeks previous? £160 is £60 per week.

A weekly income of £40,000 after tax is £770.

So should op surrender 8% of her family income for 3 weeks because it is her moral obligation to assume that a LP on benefits is struggling financially.

If she is morally obligated to do this how often does the obligation stand? If someone does it to her the next month should she make the same concessions?

What if it became a monthly occurrence?

What about the LP that can't afford £4/hour. Should she offer £2/hour to that LP up to 30 hours a week because she is morally obligated to make consessions and assumptions about parents financial position based on prejudices?

If her moral obligation runs to £60 a week, sure that's only 8%... I mean 8% is only £3,200 a year. That's less than a 10% tithe so at least she's better off than the days of religious and financial oppression by the church under the guise of morality.

Thank goodness we've progressed in our civilisation, eh?

Fuck no it's not. It's £53.30...

£53.30, 7%, £2,800/year

Hope you still get my point!

Hmm. I haven't rtft but I think YABU because you didn't know the terms of free funding would only give you a week's notice. That seems like an oversight on your part rather than that of your client.

Initially I thought YWNBU because you set out your terms in your contract; however as someone else has just pointed out, your terms don't align with those of the funding dept which seems to be your problem rather than the mum's.

I don't get this idea about the funding at all.

Why would the government pay for the LP being irresponsible and not fulfilling her contractual obligation?

I don't want the government to use our tax money to pay for a free place that isn't being used. That is abuse of the system.

If the LP had kept to the terms of the contract she would not be out of pocket. She would have given notice four weeks before she finished and the government would have paid for four more weeks and stoped paying for her on the last day she used the service.

No problem.

But how did a childminder not anticipate her mindee starting school? And yet call herself a businessperson?

Have I missed something?

Well if they're in England it's not normAl school starting time (september) so I'm assuming rhe child has started nursery school.

Yes, you've missed something! A couple of things!

Remembering it is now March have another think!

If the LP had kept to the terms of the contract she would not be out of pocket. She would have given notice four weeks before she finished and the government would have paid for four more weeks and stoped paying for her on the last day she used the service

Are you sure about that? From my understanding of the OP it didn't matter when the LP gave her notice as the government would still just pay for one week of the notice period so she'd still have to pay those last three weeks whether she was using them or not. And she did stick to the terms of the contract - gave one month's notice as was required in her contract.

The client could have given notice earlier, and there would have been no funding gap. The fact that she didn't is not your fault. (It might not be her fault, either, of course, but why should you bear the shortfall?)

This

From my understanding of the OP it didn't matter when the LP gave her notice as the government would still just pay for one week of the notice period so she'd still have to pay those last three weeks whether she was using them or not. Possibly... but we don't know!

And she did stick to the terms of the contract - gave one month's notice as was required in her contract. Yup! She also accepted that she would have a shortfall to make up.

So almost everyone except OP, LP and me ABU!!

Natsku

If op had had 4 weeks notice she would have called up on the last day to cancel the payments! Why would she cancel payments on four weeks notice? You don't need to give notice to stop receiving money (and if they overpay you can just return it anyway). Stopping payments coming are quite instant though. Setting them up is the PITA.

LP cancelled the service with effectively no notice, in breach of contract. Govt covered one week of the contracted notice period and said LP would have to fund the rest. LP, understanding her error, makes arrangements to pay what she owes.

OP uses this paid notice period to find a new client and/or restructure her family budgets if required to suit her adjusted income.

Well meaning mil mistakes OP's business as a charity - presumably because of the intimate nature of the job. She gets to see more of her clients lifestyle than many service providers.

It is absolutely black and white because op has behaved professionally. And once again I thank her for it. Its actually the opposite that gives childminding a bad reputation.

Op only unprofessional flaw here is that she was discussing a clients personal financial and social situation with a layperson (mil), which breaches confidentiality. But the actual billing and accepting of payment was totally ethical.

Legally you had every right...but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

Expecting £160 for a child who you didn't actually mind, from a woman whose income per week will not be much more than that, when you jointly earn 40K is morally wrong...and selfish.

Personally I wouldn't have done it...

I'm going to be really controversial here, but the term 'single mum' should no longer make us feel guilty. There are thousands of mums who choose to be single, either because they don't want a man in their life, or their child(ren) are fathered by someone who they know isn't going to stick around to support the child - and are quite ok with that. Why should someone who makes this choice be entitled to any more than those of us who stick together to try to make a low income work and don't receive any of these 'single' parent benefits. She owed you the money - it was her choice not to use you - you are entitled to it! I sit on a charity where we have applicants from women who have, maybe 4 or 5 children - all by different fathers, who are receiving loads of benefits yet use the begging phrase -' but I'm a single mum'!!

Not unreasonable as such but IMO immoral.

YANBU.

But I would vigorously swot up on the rules in future so you do not find yourself in a similar awkward situation.

And be wary that this type of organisation frequently moves the goal posts!

suewoo step away from the Daily Mail....just so you are aware, there is no such thing as a single parent benefit.