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.

Yanbu and I am a bit at the posters and your mil trying to make you feel bad. This is your business, as you've said. Would they be equally happy to suggest you indiscriminately gave some clients reduced meals/haircuts/clothes if you owned any of those sorts of businesses and happened to know (part of) their financial circumstances?

Presumably the mum could have
A) sent the child to you for the four weeks of the notice period for no extra/reduced charge - she chose to go on holiday instead, or
B) given you more notice e.g told you 8 weeks before child started school, you would have charged for the four weeks she was actually with you and then nothing for the last month while she was away as the notice period would have already expired?

Giving people leeway due to their circumstances is a slippery slope - you know this mum has a reduced income but for all you know your other mindees parents could also be struggling financially but haven't told you about it - they could be worse off than other mum. She could be on income support but still have quite a lot of savings/family help/whatever.

If other children also wanted to finish at the same time, you'd be hard pressed to justify why they had to pay the full notice period when this mum didn't. Meaning that if you had four children leaving you could suddenly be down £640 with no fall back.

I am looking into child minding as a new career and this is the sort of thing that I dread. I don't think any other business would be expected to discount clients once they have signed a contract and are clear on terms and conditions. Is it because it is a caring profession involving parents and children?
I think it is up to you OP to decide how you would like to run your business. If you want to waive fees and discount people then that is up to you. If you don't want to then that is also up to you. You shouldn't be guilt tripped into anything, it is what you think is right.

It's business so YANBU but I think I'd have waived it given her circumstances.

" Is it because it is a caring profession involving parents and children?"
And run by women on the whole.

Stealthpolarbear yes OP said the MIL said she could easily afford it - but the OP didn't contradict that, or say that she needed the money so from that I take it she doesn't dispute she could afford to not have taken that money.

All she's done is justify why she did it so why post on AIBU? IN the hope that people will tell her she wasn't BU so she feels a bit better about it?!

In fact you've already done something nice by waiting until her IS and then tax credits came in for her to pay you.

If she and her daughter had gone to a restaurant, and ordered a meal, but not eaten it because they changed their minds, had a better offer, or any other reason, would a restaurant owner say "fair enough, pay me half next week and then the rest when you get it" (let alone "oh don't worry about it you're poor I can afford to swallow the expense)?

Doubt it!

That's a large chunk of cash for a struggling family. I agree with your MIL.

Onceandneveragain I don't think anyone's been trying to make OP feel bad. More like she's hoping we'll agree with her so she doesn't feel bad.

Presumably the op, like most of us, works for a variety of reasons, including needing the money.

It's a business, that's why you have a contract, of course you weren't being unreasonable.

Beck are there other businesses you think should waive fees to people who are struggling?

Let's just hope that all you people that have no idea what it's like to be skint - never have the misfortune of being in this situation. £160 out of benefits is a lot.

Op didn't even mind her child, it's really mean

Onceandneveragain all your examples don't change the fact that it might have been a good thing to do for someone when you know their financial situation is pretty dire and you would be getting that money for having done nothing. OP hasn't done anything wrong, but people are just saying they wouldn' t have done what she did.

Out of interest, if the mum is on income support and not working, why did she need (free) childcare?

The single parent should have told the op to take her to a small claims court because no judge would have made her pay that.

Op did not lose any other business over this.

Op did not mind her child.

I was a single parent many years ago on benefits, sometimes not having a single penny and having to ask for food of relatives. Now I have three business with dh and still think this is a cuntish thing to do.

The offer of looking after the child was there. If she had filled the place I would agree but sh didn't. If you're told your services aren't required at work you tend to still expect payment unless you're on a zero hours contract (which I disagree with)

shimmy because it's there to help the mother look for work and for the child to socialise in structured setting which some parents don't have the opportunity to do

Of course she lost business! She expected to mind a child for x hours and be paid £160!
Am I in a different universe?

I find all the people saying OP should waive her fees odd. The OP is not a charity, this is her work.

Would you expect your employer to uphold the contract you have with them? I know I do, and I would expect anybody I had contacted to do work for me to the same. It is not "mean" to do so.

I expect my employers to pay me the salary we agreed. Likewise, if they give me notice/made me redundant, I expect them to pay me what I am owed, regardless of whether I had another job or not.

I imagine everyone would expect OP to keep her end of the contract up. I can't imagine people being very sympathetic if OP said she couldn't take the child for a few weeks but wasn't going to arrange suitable alternative care/provide a refund or whatever her contract said. She would be told she had a contract and needed to stick to the terms of that. That goes both ways, IMO.

Her client could have given notice earlier, thereby avoiding having to make up the difference. She didn't, so she has to pay. Which she has done, without fuss.

So is the op supposed to assess all her mindees parental incomes and wave her terms and conditions and give her time for free? Or just for single parents? The mother decided not to use the hours. There is still a cost involved.

jazzy it's not mean at all. It's a business transaction that had a contract and the parent could have made her last day the day before she went to visit relatives.

But she didn't. A months notice, used or unused, is in the contract so she needs to pay.

The childminders income is irrelevant, the customers income is irrelevant.

I'm with your Mil. Mean.
Living on benefits is a miserable existence and paying £160 out of it would've left her, and her child with nothing.

But it's fine for you because you're living on a comfortable combined income of 40k. Fuck me! When did people become so fucking mean?!

Would you've really missed that £160? Would you have been able to heat your home and eat without it? Probably.

She probably didn't. But it's business. Fucking awful.

Tomato are there other businesses that should waive the woman's costs?
Supermarkets? Energy bills? Petrol?
Are you as angry with them as with this one-woman business who is not a high earner?

Well it's in the contract so of course you're not technically wrong to have asked her to pay it. I personally would not have but I'm a LP and know it can be seriously tough, so am biased.

I'm baffled by this thread! Shall we all just start paying why we can afford for everything rather than what we're contractually obliged too? DP was made redundant last year, maybe we should've just told the childminder that since he was at home for a month we didn't need her so wouldn't be paying, or told our landlord we'd only pay a bit of the rent

I'm a self employed travel agent, if I have a customer unable to pay so need to cancel shall I just pay it for them?