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.

But Math:

03/03/2017 20:50 lucindia

i told the school last week that the child would be leaving and gave thedate she starts school. They would only pay one week of that month.

It made no difference what date I rang.

'She gave what she thought was the minimum notice not knowing about the funding. She must have been aware there was a chance she might have to pay something as she specifically asked me to let her know if there was any balance to pay.'

'She gave the normal notice period'

So the mum gave what was required of her in terms of notice.
The OP knows what is normal notice and this was acceptable. I am wondering since CMing is the OP's business if she was aware - somewhere at the back of her mind perhaps - that the council would only pay a portion of the notice period.

The reason to ask if there was a balance was that she had occasionally gone over the 15 free hours (this was related by the OP). Maybe there were some meals or snacks provided too, though the OP doesn't mention this.

OP, you are supposed to have a proper contract with your clients, and the possibility of a client paying for part or all of the notice period should be in it. If it wasn't, then you should not have billed her for this. Billing for items not in a contract is not legal.

Billing for an extra hour here or there would have been reasonable and legal too if your contract included that stipulation, but for three weeks - no, unless specified in the contract.

It is not up to the client to anticipate your difficulty in finding another child to take up the place and provide income for you. That element is not a factor in all of this. You have to do your utmost to find another client, and four weeks is a reasonable time to do this.

The council is obliged to pay for services provided by you in accordance with the law. Even if a child is absent for any reason you still get paid as long as the child is still registered with you. If the LA are not paying then you need to write to your MP and also take up the matter with the council. They shouldn't require recipients of childcare services to observe a notice period and then effectively penalise people who comply with the requirement and stiff the caregivers who are left possibly working for nothing.

There must be thousands of CMs in your shoes and I am amazed that the question of funding or payment during the notice period does not come up in internet searches.
I am wondering if there was some crossing of lines somewhere regarding the dates conveyed over the phone to the LA, or if someone at the council dropped the ball.
It is possible that there are CMs who have notice period payment prominently in their contracts too.
I would like to know exactly what your contract with the client said about payment during the notice period.

Op is clearly not coming back so I will add in my borough parents receiving free funded places do sign a contract and in it explains terms of notice. It also explained notice period from Childminder may be different from authority. There are guidelines on attendance. The same way someone cannot sent there child 10 hours a week and childminder claim the full 15.

I care very much about the children I look after but it is a job. I do it to earn money. I would also like to add for Ofsted I am expected to do paperwork which would not be included in any funded hours, I need to do accounts on top of any additional cleaning, washing ,Shopping for resources and food to feed them as well as planning. I certainly do plenty that I don't get paid for.

She must have been aware there was a chance she might have to pay something as she specifically asked me to let her know if there was any balance to pay.
And -
I'm also concerned some people would just take advantage of you were kind like this or you fall into the trap of doing a lot of unpaid work because you're being too generous.

Starlight
I have read all of the OP's posts a few times and have not seen any mention of a contract.

I have also read many references to whatever contract may have existed between the OP and the client, and the OP has avoided referring to them.

The comments I have highlighted also suggest to me that there was in fact no contract - if there had been one, the OP would surely have said She would have been aware there was a chance she might have to pay something because the contract states xyz. And she wouldn't have been concerned about people taking advantage of her if she had a contract with her clients.

If I am right, then the OP urgently needs to get a solicitor to draw up a contract and use it. She also needs to look into the notice period required by the council and work out how everyone can win here or she risks poor reviews by people who have been stung.

I don't know if anyone else has had any luck researching the problem of CMs/nurseries and LAs having different notice periods or clients complaining about being billed for portions of their notice periods. If this isn't a widespread problem then it is very possible the OP needs to do some research to maximise her chances of being paid by the LA. Or she needs to shell out for legal services and use a contract.

I have read all of the OP's posts a few times and have not seen any mention of a contract.

Every registered childminder has to pay for insurance. The insurance is only valid when there is signed paperwork. Paperwork is checked when you are inspected. All registered childminders are inspected. Only registered (and so inspected, and do with correct paperwork) childminders can do the 15 free hours scheme.

They are very standardised contracts, which you have to use to keep your insurance valid.

She had a contract.

She clearly did not refer to it at all then, in her dealings with the parent. Contracts stipulate everyone's rights and responsibilities, and her entire OP centered around confusion as to hers.

Hopefully, she is not in Bromley:

Payments and bills explained

'Bromley Council pays your chosen provider directly for the free place that you receive.

'If you buy extra time in addition to your free place, any bill/invoice you receive should be clear and show the amount charged for the extra time – it must not show the money received from Bromley Council deducted from the total bill.

'You do not have to pay towards a free place and providers are not allowed to charge you any difference between their own prices and the money received from Bromley Council.

'You do not have to buy additional time or services such as lunches or uniform if your child is accessing only the free place.'

I think the bill for £160 could be seen as a top up bill. It was the difference between what the nursery charged and the amount funded by the council.

The government advertises free childcare and the fact that it doesn't reimburse the caregiver is not the responsibility of the client who in good faith took the government up on its offer.

If the contract (if there even was a contract, which I still doubt despite Opal's post) does not require the client to make up for shorting on the part of the LA then the client should not have been billed.

Incidentally, what constitutes a contract, Opal? A sheet of paper where you fill in your name and contact details and the child's name and days/hours s/he will be at the care location, along with pricing for meals and trips and price per 15 minutes for extra time over the 15 hours? Or a document setting forth various rights and responsibilities including waiver of responsibility for injury, in loco parentis rights to call an ambulance, safeguarding protocols, etc., all laid out and mutually understood?

Incidentally, what constitutes a contract, Opal?

A contract is agreeing the terms of business. All the other permissions you refer to must be completed too.

The la told the op to invoice the LP for the outstanding balance.

They were in the wrong. It is supposed to be free to the recipient, and the OP should have gone after the LA for the money the LA owed her. The client did not owe her for free childcare. The client should not be faced with covering the shortfall.

From your sentences about contracts I gather the more usual 'contract' would better fit my first description than my second, in which case the OP shouldn't have asked the client for the money. She was not entitled to it either legally or morally unless she had a detailed contract stating that all shortfalls on the part of the LA would have to be made up by the client, and since this was clearly a surprise to the OP I doubt this was included in any pieces of paper the OP or the client signed.

...and since clients making up shortfalls is not legal she couldn't have included it in her 'contract'.

Aimrica what a lovely story, I am moved!

This does come down to a terms of business agreement though surely? A gym would not let you off your notice period if you suddenly couldn't go; many businesses charge for no show appointments and no one bats an eyelid. Would everyone asking the CM to waive the money be happy not to be paid themselves if they took a week off work ill or take a pay cut if their employer was having a tough time financially? It seems inappropriate.

You are absolutely correct mathanxiety you aren't but when you are making up scenarios such as the op local authority and applying them as fact, I'm out.

I, and many others are glad op got the payment she was entitled to. (Her posts have clarified that she was entitled.) I'm baffled that you think the LP is so stupid that she wouldn't check contract conditions before handing over an unexpected £160. Especially if the bleeding hearts are correct in the assumption that she has poor budgeting skills/expects special treatment.

It has highlighted one issue, for another thread and another time. All this effort and expense that we've put in to drag childminding into the professional category and so many people still see it as take-it-or-leave-it pocket money for the kind little woman who should simply care for children because... vagina. Sigh.

She was entitled to payment from the LA, not the client. Either it is fifteen hours of free childcare per week or it is not, and baiting and switching is usually illegal.

Bait and stitch in this case refers to letting a women who is entitled to fifteen hours of free childcare go ahead and register her child with the CM and then refuse to pay for the CM's services. It refers to letting the CM accept a child for his fifteen free hours for a period of time and then refusing to pay for her services for part of that period. I agree fully with you, Opal, that it is seen as pocket money for the kind little woman who should simply care for children because... vagina. Seen as such, that is, by the LA.

You can't just cast around and make somebody else pay when your normal source of income will not cough up. The client was entitled to fifteen hours of free childcare per week. It was supposed to be free. The LA had no right whatsoever to tell the CM to get the client to pay.

If there was even a whiff of a contract, I suspect the OP would have mentioned it.

OP - if you're there - I hope you show your Mum this thread and that she recognises you have as much right to be paid for doing a proper job (which CM most definitely is) as any - gasp! - man!

Yes. Do you really need to ask this?

Have some humanity. You've looked after the child since she was a baby yet you're happy to deprive them of their essential income support that probably pays for fuel and food.

Dreadful

ZOMBIE THREAD

Yes you were unreasonable. She didn't send the child in, you know that 160 pounds is a huge chunk of fortnightly benefits; all these "it's just business" answers are examples of the nasty, empathy-free, profit-over-people society this country has sunk to.

Oops! It's past midnight and I'm in my ranty, unobservant phase! Answer stands though 😝

I think you were mean. I'm self employed and I regularly give people discounts because of the context. One of the great things about being self employed is having the freedom to be spontaneously generous

This is an old thread. @FrameyMcFrame resurrected it for no discernible reason.

YANBU if that’s the legal contract, but I couldn’t have done this to someone. As you didn’t have the actual effort of looking after her child for the 4 weeks, I’d have been tempted to ask for half the amount.

You’re totally within your rights to ask for the full amount though, I’d just have felt too guilty.

Haha, annoying! Caught by a zombie thread

This is an old thread. @FrameyMcFrame resurrected it for no discernible reason
Very annoying 😒

I know this is a zombie thread but reading all those posts purposefully misunderstanding that the reason the council didn't pay the full notice period was because the client didn't use the service during the notice period WAS A TRIP.