Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To not pay this childminding bill

546 replies

Ellie6578 · 26/08/2017 11:49

My one year old goes to a childminder 4 days a week whilst I'm working since October last year, I've had no issues so far.

My dd visits her dad for 2 weeks every 6 weeks, so she doesn't go to the childminder during these times (he lives up north and I'm down south) however I understand that I still have to pay for her missed days in order to secure her place (her dad pays for these 2 weeks of missed time) and that's fine as my contract states I have to pay for 4 days a week even if my dd doesn't attend.

She came back this week after only 4 days of being with her dad unlike the normal 14 days. This was because her dad had to go to Germany for a few days for work and my little girl really would not settle with his mum.

I messaged my childminder and said my dd had come home early and would she be able to have her tomorrow as normal. My childminder stated she could not have her for another 4 days as she had taken in another child for childcare which took up my daughters space. Ok I thought, my mum took time off work to look after her.

I got the invoice yesterday and I've been charged for those 4 days even though I was told my daughter couldn't go in because she had filled her space! So if I paid for it, the Childminder's earning double for half the work. Aibu not to pay for those 4 days?!

OP posts:
whatsthecomingoverthehill · 27/08/2017 01:32

Honey, my point was that any legal advice is likely to cost more than the sum in dispute. If the OP gets taken to small claims it would probably be cheaper than getting a solicitor.

whatsthecomingoverthehill · 27/08/2017 01:32

Boney, not honey, bloody autocorrect.

emmyrose2000 · 27/08/2017 04:41

I bet dollars to donuts she's been hiring out the two weeks you pay for but don't use, every six weeks as well.

I'd get a friend to ring up and make a fake enquiry about those two weeks. The answer could be very interesting.

As for the current situation, no, you definitely shouldn't be paying. If she tries to insist, I'd giver her immediate notice and find a different CM.

Foxtrot92 · 27/08/2017 07:51

Actually I think in most CM's contracts it doesn't specifically state that full fees are due if a child is absent in order to keep a space. There's no clause saying should parent change mind etc.

I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

(Former CM)

Cherrytart6 · 27/08/2017 08:42

In the future OP you may have to say that your child is away for a week but may return anytime and would need the space immediately

Roomster101 · 27/08/2017 09:21

Actually I think in most CM's contracts it doesn't specifically state that full fees are due if a child is absent in order to keep a space. There's no clause saying should parent change mind etc.

There doesn't have to be a clause stating specifically stating that full fees are due in order to keep a space! Do you think a landlord is entitled to rent out a tenants room/house when they go on holiday even though they are paying full rent? Afterall the tenant doesn't need the room and it doesn't specifically say they can't do that in tenancy contracts? Even if there was a clause saying that they could do that it wouldn't be upheld in court as it is obviously unreasonable. You can't just put anything you like in a contract and the fact that many CM on this website (I appreciate not all) who don't get this gives CM a bad name. You are/were running a business and should have more idea of how things work and what is and isn't reasonable.

diamond49 · 27/08/2017 11:50

It is irrelevant whether the cm is morally in the right or in the wrong. It is irtelevant wjat other cms do or what mners think The only relevant thing is what the contract says

ItBroke · 27/08/2017 12:02

The only relevant thing is what the contract says

That's not quite true... it's only relevant if a contract exists.Wink

ItBroke · 27/08/2017 12:03

Sorry I posted that last comment on the wrong thread......

Autofillcontact · 27/08/2017 12:06

It's absolutely not the only thing diamond. You can't just put whatever you like in a contract and expect the court to enforce it for you Hmm

annielouise · 27/08/2017 12:12

You pay those weeks to keep the space open and you accept that you have to pay as why should the CM be out of pocket.

It is your space. She's being cheeky giving it to someone else - so why should you pay for it. She's now not out of pocket as she has someone else to fill it.

If she doesn't understand after you explaining it to her I'd go elsewhere. Her loss as well as yours as it'll be hassle but it would really annoy me.

Nomoreboomandbust · 27/08/2017 12:13

Not sure upthread re the council monitoring cm contracts that's bollocks as cms are SE and can write their own contracts or use childminding association ones so really you need to read and keep a copy of any contract you signed.

Still as a cm for years my way of working was if I was closed then payment was not due. Your cm had filled your space so it wasn't available to you so she was closed.

I think she's a cheeky cow and I would never have treated my parents like this.

annielouise · 27/08/2017 12:15

Haven't read the whole thread but just saw someone mention why should the CM be there twiddling her thumbs. She's getting paid one space to do nothing! That's a great position to be in. However, she chose to be greedy and get paid twice for that period of time by getting another kid in. Those hours are now covered so she should have told the OP that she doesn't need to pay but that she no longer has a claim on those hours.

The OP might then have said but I might need those hours/days sometimes so I'll continue to pay so you're not out of pocket but please don't fill the space as if/when I do need the hours/days you'll still be within the child to adult ratio.

Complete lack of communication from the CM and really comes across as being greedy and deceitful.

annielouise · 27/08/2017 12:23

The CM changed the original agreement and didn't inform the OP. The original agreement was the OP would pay for those slots so the CM wouldn't be out of pocket as the slots were irregular and possibly harder to fill. She's now managed to fill them so the terms have changed with the OP.

What she should have done - even if it was only for 2 weeks and not on a regular basis - was check with the OP whether she might need them (after all people get sick and perhaps the child care would be needed) and if she didn't say I'll take on this extra child for those 2 weeks but you don't pay but you can't claim the place for those 2 weeks. She pulled a fast one.

Nomoreboomandbust · 27/08/2017 12:28

There has to be 100% trust and full communication between the parent and the cm or it won't work.

I would look elsewhere op

insancerre · 27/08/2017 12:30

It's not down to the cm to check with the op
The op changed the terms of the agreement at short notice
The cm is not being greedy
She's maximising her profits

Flowersinyourhair · 27/08/2017 12:40

My dd2 is at nursery and the nature of my job is such that she doesn't go at all during the school holidays. However, we still pay in full for them. The nursery staff are always very clear that if she needs/wants to attend for a day here and there then we absolutely do not need to let them know as that space is hers and they are staffed accordingly.

Willow2017 · 27/08/2017 12:46

The terms of the agreement are that op pays for that space whether her child needs it or not. It is her child's space not a vacancy. It is counted in her numbers for the days op pays for. Things happen and plans change the cm should be aware of this. Selling the space to someone else is taking the p. If she can't take the child without using someone else's space them then she can't.

Babbitywabbit · 27/08/2017 13:03

Insancerre- you're saying the OP changed the terms of the agreement by wanting the space she paid for as a 'holding place' to be used for childcare. Surely that works both ways- the cm changed the terms of the agreement by using the 'holding place' for childcare for another child.

BoneyBackJefferson · 27/08/2017 13:06

whatsthecomingoverthehill

The OP could used the CAB or if available in her area some solicitors offer 30 minutes free consultation.

Either way surely the OP is better off knowing what her actual legal position is rather than not paying.

DiscoDiva70 · 27/08/2017 13:43

incanserre

Yes the cm IS maximising her profits - to the detriment of the OP!

The OP has PAID for a space, so if the space isn't filled the cm still gets paid.
If the space is filled by someone else's child, then the OP shouldn't be paying. The other child's mum will have paid the cm instead.

Now because the cm has still charged OP, she has effectively collected two payments. Which is WRONG

Why can't some people see this Confused

Skittykitty · 27/08/2017 14:00

OP needs to speak to the CM about it to get to the bottom of what could easily be a misunderstanding about the contract (I explained a few posts up thread about desposits vs retainers and the effect this has on "reserving" a space) or an invoicing error (CM may have written invoices ahead of time and forgotten to correct OP's). To immediately leap to the conclusion that she's been lying this whole time does no one any favours. OP needs to get CM's side of things before reaching any conclusions.

As a side note, I used to have a reciprocal arrangement with two other local CMs to cover hours for each other. This was made known to parents at contract signing. If I was sick or otherwise closed and one of the other two CMs had space then they would cover the hours for me (my fees for that day would go to that CM), if they couldn't provide cover or the parent didn't want to use the cover then there's be no charge as I was closed. It's a possibility that the CM has a similar arrangement and as she's had an unused space has taken on a child from another CM as a one off due to sickness or closure. I'm not saying she's been right to still charge the OP for it, before anyone leaps on me, but it's a possible reason as to why there was a child in that space and it doesn't mean that the CM has been filling the space on a regular basis.

Speckledtulip · 27/08/2017 14:17

I was a childminder for a while. If I stated that a child could not come, I would not charge.
You are paying full price for a place, not a retainer.

Whinesalot · 27/08/2017 14:18

She can't have her cake and eat it. Either the space is available to use or it's not. But if it's not then she can't charge for it.

annielouise · 27/08/2017 16:26

insancerre - how has the OP changed the terms of the agreement? She's paying for a full time space that she can't access Confused. It's the CM that's changed the agreement - she reserved a space for the OP's child is now being sold twice. Hardly maximising profits legitimately. It's deceitful. However, I think it could be an honest mistake if she's not a natural businesswoman rather than her being a shark. You'll only know if you speak to her.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread