To not pay this childminding bill

[Ellie6578]

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?!

I think OP has posted 4 times. Hopefully she will post again when she has heard back from the CM.

IClavdivus- I think we are making different points. Mine is to do with women's earnings so is off-topic. Apologies.

Today 07:50 HSMMaCM

"I love all the speculation when no one has seen the contract. Perhaps OP is contractually obliged to give 4 weeks notice (or however long it says) to use her retained days. If so, then this is what was agreed"

• and yet you are speculating! And speculating a scenario which is quite frankly ridiculous! Why on earth would a parent pay full rate if there were a chance their child

Might not be able to attend? What on earth would be in it for them? It takes about 3 seconds thinking to realise that they would be better off saying they're paying for their child to attend and then cancelling when they're not going.

If it were less than full price it would be different. I had to pay half price during my holidays as a retainer for my cm, and the arrangement was 1 week notice if I wanted to use the cm during this time, and I would top up to the full amount.

Later when I used nursery, it was full pay all year round, so obviously that was the child's space, and available for me to use.

In the absence of an update from the OP we can really only go by what she writes- which is that she pays full price to 'secure' the place. I would certainly take that to mean it's her child's place, not a vacancy.

I think any cm who tries to write into the contract that the parent won't be guaranteed their child's place even though they're paying full rate is greedy and unscrupulous frankly. Thankfully it's just a small minority of cm on here who disagree and seem to think it's good business practice!

This cm has it very easy if the norm is to get full pay for doing nothing for a fortnight every 6 weeks. There's also no way i think she's just made an error- I suspect she always intended to bill both parents. As I said several (hundred?) posts ago, if she was intending to not charge the OP as she wasn't going to be able to take her child, why on earth would she give herself the extra work of taking on a high needs child? She would have made the same money doing nothing.

Maireadplastic: Yes, I think we have realised that we are talking at cross purposes.

Thankfully it's just a small minority of cm on here who disagree and seem to think it's good business practice!

All of CM on the thread have advised OP to speak calmly to her her CM to get to the bottom of it and to check her paperwork to see whether it's marked as a deposit or a retainer. Not a single CM has posted "that's great and is exactly how I run my business".

You pay for your holidays to keep the space. Fair enough. If she can, she tries to fill that space as why not? Fair enough. You ask for the space back but it's not there due to the short notice. Iffy, but fair enough. She charges you for a service she couldn't offer, not fair

grandOlejukeofYork

Nobody needs to see the contract.

You really do need to see the contract to be able to say if the CM is in fact wrong.

And unless the OP comes back from her discussion we won't know if its a mistake.

Skittykitty People aren't disagreeing with you on whether OP should speak calmly to the CM (at least initially) to get to the bottom of what is going on. People are disagreeing with you on whether the CM can charge full price every two weeks out of six even if she is not available for work. You think she can if it is in the contract. Almost everyone else including most CM are saying that she can't even if she has slipped it into the contract because it would be an unreasonable contract term and therefore not enforceable.

You really do need to see the contract to be able to say if the CM is in fact wrong.

No, you don't because even if it is in the contract it wouldn't be fair or enforceable. She can't charge full price for two weeks for nothing.

Roomster101

We don't know what is in the contract. The OP has never said.

She has said that she pays X amount, but not what it written down.

So we don't know if the terms make an unreasonable contract, because we don't know what the terms are, this is what several of us have been trying to get across.

Roomster - this is madness:
If they mess me about in the way you describe, then I give notice and offer the place to a family that won't treat me so disrespectfully.

What?
OP states that they only needed 4 weeks in 6, but contract stated that they had to book, and pay for all 6 weeks, to reserve those days each week. OP agreed to pay 1/3 more than her regular childcare needs, because this reservation ensured that the CM would not have to worry about filling 2 weeks out of the six.
The CM is being paid for 2 weeks out of every 6 that are not normally used. I would suggest that this would be perceived as a valued customer. Less work for the money paid overall.
She then needed days that she'd already booked, but was refused them.
Which part of this would be 'messing you about'?

So we don't know if the terms make an unreasonable contract, because we don't know what the terms are, this is what several of us have been trying to get across.

You are getting across the fact that you think it depends on what is in the contract! People just don't agree with you on that point. Are you just being argumentative or do you really not get that. It doesn't matter what the terms are in the contract as you can't just put any old thing in the contract and expect it to be enforceable.

So I am being argumentative for repeating my point yet you are not for doing the same thing.

I am fully aware that you can't just "put any old thing in the contract and expect it to be enforceable."

But again we don't know what is in the contract and the way that it is written will make a difference as to whether it is enforceable or not.

The point is made by your post
"Almost everyone else including most CM are saying that she can't even if she has slipped it into the contract because it would be an unreasonable contract term and therefore not enforceable"

if being the important word because you don't know what is in the contract

But again we don't know what is in the contract and the way that it is written will make a difference as to whether it is enforceable or not.

An unreasonable term doesn't become enforceable because it has been written in a certain way. If it is unreasonable, it is unreasonable..

So I am being argumentative for repeating my point yet you are not for doing the same thing.

I didn't say that you were necessarily being argumentative. I appreciate that you probably just don't get it.

And that depends on the term itself and how it is written.

There are holding fees, deposits and reservation fees.
These are not classed as unreasonable terms.

for instance

The OP will pay a reservation fee to ensure that the place is held open for the 4 weeks required.

It stops the CM from selling the OP's place (for those four weeks) and sets the times of CM, its not unreasonable as it ensures that the OP has a place at the times she needs it.

BoneyBackJefferson It doesn't matter if it is called a "holding fee" or a deposit" or anything else. It would be unreasonable to charge a holding fee or deposit for two weeks out of every six if that was equivalent to full payment for those two weeks.

Roomster

In legal terms it does matter what the fee is called as it describes the requirement of the contracted duties of the signature parties.

It would be unreasonable to charge a holding fee or deposit for two weeks out of every six if that was equivalent to full payment for those two weeks.

Yet that is what the OP signed too and was very happy to do it until she couldn't get what could possibly be an extra space.

Whether she is entitled to that time is once again dependent on what is in her contract.

It really isn't that difficult to understand.

Yet that is what the OP signed too and was very happy to do it until she couldn't get what could possibly be an extra space.

It is clear that the OP thought that she was paying for a space and expected to be able to use it. Even if the contract is worded to state that it is just a "holding fee" or a "deposit", and she couldn't actually use the space, then she clearly wasn't aware of it and considering that it wouldn't be a reasonable contract term that is hardly surprising. As I said, even if the contract states that she can't use the space despite paying the full price, it still wouldn't be a reasonable contract term. It really isn't difficult to understand...

Why would anyone sign a contract stating that?? (particularly as clearly it's quite possible that in this case the child's father may get called off to work abroad unexpectedly)

The OP (and indeed anyone else in their right mind) would say, 'err, no, I'm not signing up to that, I'll just pay a full time place for my dd and just not use it some of the time.'

It's interesting that the minority of people on here defending the cm by making a big deal of the hypothetical contract, are hypothesising on the basis of a) the cm being a bit of a shark and seeing a 'business opportunity' whereby she rakes in 2 weeks wages for doing jack shit for every 6 weeks of work, plus is quite happy to get double wages in those weeks by taking on other kids, and b) the OP being a bit of an idiot for signing up to that.

Why not let's work on the basis that the OP is a sane human being and that when she writes that she pays full price to secure her dd's place, she actually knows what she's saying?

That was in response to boneybackjefferson btw. Cross post with Roomster!

You really do need to see the contract to be able to say if the CM is in fact wrong

We really don't and it's been explained multiple times why. There is nothing you could put in a contract that makes it ok to charge twice for one space.

I'm going to leave this.

You seem to think that you can spot an unreasonable contract without knowing what the contract actually says.

I'm saying that you should read the contract (or in the OP's case have it reviewed by someone that knows contract law) before giving advice.

It really isn't difficult to understand...

You seem to think that you can spot an unreasonable contract without knowing what the contract actually says

You're not listening. We don't need to see the contract because we know what the CM has done is completely unreasonable, and the contract does not change that in the slightest.

That really isn't difficult to understand, you're right, so why can't you egt it?

OP hasn't been back