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.

I think you are being intentionally pedantic now, so I'll leave it there with you on this one.

Have joined late to the thread, but my overwhelming impression from this is that to assume the OP should waive her fee is actually quite insulting to the childcare industry. The very fact that people are saying the OP should waive her fee and 'be a nice little woman about it' completely undermines the profession. Do solicitors / accountants / architects etc waive their fees when dealing with 'poorer' people? Err, no.
What is more, I think the OP's offer to waive the fee could have been taken as an insult by her client. Perhaps she doesn't want or expect charity, and would have felt embarrassed and patronised had the OP offered.

The problem is in the question and the way the situation is looked at.

AIBU - maybe you should have asked yourself 'Am I being human and using that rare gift of empathy and foresight in asking for this money'. Nobody is doing anything wrong and, yes, you are entitled.

She gave you a month's notice. The fact that the funding only pays one week is neither here nor there - did her contract say that she had to give the notice AND pay fully for that month?

Now that you know this, it may be advisable to warn other similar customers and let them know that only 1 week of notice is paid and they would need to find the difference. At least that way they're prepared. Maybe set up an extra £5 p/w that goes into a fund to cover for such an occasion.

£160 to a single mum on benefits is probably her food bill (and some) for that whole month.

Its not being overly pedantic when that detail makes the difference in whether the LP should have given notice earlier or not or should have kept her child with the OP during the notice period. Its a very important detail.

No that's not out of order, a contract is a contract. I run my own business which i had to close as I've moved which also meant I gave my childminder notice and paid my fees because that's how it works. Could I afford it this month, no, but she's done lots for me and I was happy to pay her as she's been amazing for my son! You just need to remember that you've looked after and nurtured her child all this time xx

If the mum gave 4 weeks notice as required and never expected to pay anything, then presenting her with a bill because of the problems with the funding department is both unprofessional and morally wrong. It is unprofessional because it should be the childcare provider's job to know and communicate the nuances of the system clearly, and well in advance. It is morally wrong because some effort towards resolving the situation would be a natural, humane thing to do. Talking to the customer, fighting her corner with the funding department, making a real effort to fill the place, offering to pay by installments are just some of the things that could have been done. Passing the problem onto the customer is a selfish thing to do.

As a family we had experience of four nurseries, all of them were flexible and none of them were charging for the services they didn't provide. They never charged for the time we were away on holiday for example - although clearly it wasn't possible to get another child in for those two weeks to compensate. Childcare providers get away with charging a fixed monthly fee and imposing a notice period because it's standard practice and often parents have no choice but to agree. That doesn't make it good business practice.

What I dont "get" is why the OP's income is in any way relevant.

Because nobody expects someone who can't afford it, to help someone financially. But society does work better when those who have, can help those who have not.

If you don't think her income is important, let just suppose the post started like this "last year I won £10 million on the lottery and decided to start my own business". Would it then seem like an ok thing that she accepted the money from a single mother's next income support cheque?

You see it all the time, MPs lambasted for claiming £2.00 expenses for a sandwich. Wealthy pensioners berated for claiming their £100 winter fuel payments. Which they are perfectly entitled to do under the rules.

If her bank balance can well afford not to take the money for a service she wasn't actually providing, then it's not unreasonable to suggest she might have considered reducing or waiving the fee as a good will gesture. She didn't have to, it is her choice and I don't believe she should be judged either way. But it ridiculous to suggest her financial situation should have no bearing on the situation.

Childcare providers get away with charging a fixed monthly fee and imposing a notice period because it's standard practice and often parents have no choice but to agree. That doesn't make it good business practice.

Our nursery also did this, we just accepted it, although it did irk a bit. But you make a good point. Is there any other industry / business where customers are expected to do this?

You also make a good point about advising the customer. It is possible the OP didn't know, which isn't great but everyone makes mistakes. Hopefully she willl advise future customers of this, and look at the terms of existing customers who might end up in the same situation.

I want to know what the contract says about school holidays? does she usually come to you in the school holidays? I've asked this several times but no answer has been forthcoming, but I think it is a key question

I think private schools usually expect you to give a term's notice if you want to send your child to a different school. If you don't give sufficient notice you have to pay a term's fee even if your child has left.

Angel it wasnt the school holidays! The kid didnt start school for a month, he should have been at the cm until then but the parent decided to go away for the month.

That was her choice nothing to do with the op.

I would have been mortified when I was on low wage, had huge debts due to exp and on top ups to think anyone thought I 'couldnt manage my money and needed charity' and that someone went without thier due fees for a job I had contracted them to do.

The parent approached the op to ask what she was still owed, she had the choice to pay it up over the month but chose to pay it over 2 weeks, HER CHOICE.

I've been on really low income but would not have been embarrassed or mortified if someone let a payment go because of my income - why should I be? Being poor is a fact of life, not something to be ashamed of, so being let off a bill just made me grateful not embarrassed (its happened to me but in very different circumstances than in the op)

Originalfoogirl

If your work decided they no longer needed you would you expect notice?
Why should cms not protect thier own income just the same? Its not like parents suddenly decide on the friday that they just realised that the won't need the cm services next week. They can tell the cm in advance and the child still continues to go to the cm (or not its up to the parent) and she/he can start looking for a new customer for after the child leaves.

Its standard practice because of the amount of people who think paying thier cm is not a priority and leaving them in the lurch for weeks without paying is no big deal and then trying to get out of their notice period by claiming its 'unfair' is far more common than people think. I know a cm who had been sold a sob story about parents being skint and couldnt pay that week and she saw them later in the supermarket with a trolley overflowing with booze for the party they were throwing that night!

Here is a hint - dont sign a contract you havent read, or dont intend to keep or feel is 'unfair' then complain about it later. Its basic common sense.

I would be embarassed because someone made an assumption about me that wouldnt have been true.

I still paid my way, I managed what money I had and still kept a roof over the kids heads.
Just because someone is on benefits doesnt mean that they are hopeless with money and cant budget.

As I said, she could have had thousands in the bank and still be getting benefits, nobody here knows, you are all presuming she was on the breadline and making decisions for her.

Hang on

Any cm's out there
Do you not get the funding for the free hours if your charge is on holiday?

I've never been sent an increased bill by nursery when we are away, asking us to cover the contracted hours which are usually funded. I assume they still claim them (we do 52 weeks).

I agree with math Seems all of this could have been avoided if the op had waited to give notice to the la. I also still don't understand why those hours weren't covered by the LA.

This is ridiculous. Op clearly isn't coming back to clarify.

There is nothing stopping anyone struggling to manage their finances who is reading this from contacting their LA independently to understand the funding situation and notice period before they sign a contract. (Hint: it's a two page contract with one page of guidance notes - grab a coffee and read it).

Keeping to the personally beneficial and detrimental terms of a mutually agreed contract is good practice and good ethics.

Take responsibility, for goodness sake! If you think you deserve special treatment in addition to your income support etc, you are the reason why negative stereotypes (which I have learned to be largely unfair) about your demographic exsist.

So many rationalisations and justifications for mean-spiritedness on this thread. That could easily apply to the Dickens character Scrooge who ensured that folks stick to contracts with his unwavering business is business no sympathy attitude. And the the moral of the story was...

I agree with the contract bit. It was something she had to pay and she knew it and that's why she was finding no excuses to pay even if she was struggling to find this money.

However... We are human and if you are not struggling yourself but you know she is or might it's only human decency and if you are a good person then you would find it difficult to make a decision whether to ask for the money or not.
Am not saying to do this with everyone but you could have made an exemption this time..

What will happen next, if you push this point of view, is that cm will (perhaps subconsciously) favour accepting business from more stereotypically wealthy families.

Then they can ask for what is owed to them without being labelled as immoral, mean or unkind.

Why do you think so many landlords have a no dhss stipulation? It's so unfair but they can do it. CM could also choose to not accept funded hours clients.

How does that help the demographic you think you are protecting with your ill-advised views on morality?

Some very ignorant and short sighted people on this thread.

'demographic' LOL! says it all. Go on Opal. Have the last word... you seriously need the self-talk.

risingandashining given that you want to compare the OP to a fictional Dickens character in your previous post, I'm loathe to even ask for clarification on what you find amusing about demographic.

Do feel free to clarify if you wish, however equally do feel free to join the twattish contributors by posting a random message beneath a wealth of measured and thought out comments.

Ah, Natsku! What a well timed cross post!

Opal, I agree with you 100%.
Speaking as a small business owner as well as a landlord, I am struggling to understand the logic of some of the replies on here, and I can only presume that few of the PP have ever been in this situation, so they are taking a theoretical view on what they think they would do in this situation.
If you are self-employed - as this CM is - the fees for the childminding are the CM's income not just a bit of extra money she can take or leave.
I think it has been asked several times upthread how pp would react if their pay was docked by £160 next month because their employer was a bit short on cashflow?
It's all very nice and georgeous to be kind to people all the time, but sadly the economy does not run on wooly hugs and smiles.
So many threads on here seem to put feelings above anything else, and as Opel has said, while being nice to someone might make everyone feel lovely, in the long-term, it will probably cause more problems that everyone just sticking to what they agreed to in the first place (which of course this LP was perfectly happy to do).
Last year, I lost £2500 because one of my HB tenants decided to stop paying because he could not afford the rent any longer. It was pointless me persuing him through the courts because I knew he would end up paying me back at about £5 per week, if at all.
The result is - rightly or wrongly - I will no longer consider HB tenants in my properties because I know that, despite the facts otherwise, these tenants were portraying me as a heartless landlord threatening to evict them when they had a new baby.
Empathy and kindness is cheap to offer when it's not your financial loss in question.

It is precisely because the CM's income is so important that I am baffled as to why she notified the LA so early that her client had given notice.

Because of her rash decision to call the LA immediately she might have been left in your position, Cathf - stuck accepting a fiver every two weeks until the £160 was paid off.

Now that she knows only one week of the notice period will be paid by the LA, no doubt she won't be so quick to pick up the phone to the LA next time someone gives notice.

This is not a question of being nice/wooly hugs, or whatever. It is a question of a ludicrous course of action taken by the OP and someone else forced to carry the can.