...fed up at having to pay childminder full

[Tinkerbellone]

My child minder stopped working two weeks ago because of worries about corona virus.
She or her partner have no health conditions.
I am a key worker.
She always charges half rate over school holidays even though she doesn't have my children.
She is still charging me Full Rate even though she not working or having my children at all.
I know she has a business to run, but this doesn't seem fair to me; I could understand half pay.
As a single parent I'm struggling to get my children to and from school now. I'm relying on friends and/or my children walking on their own after I've left for work in the morning they are 11 & 8.
Has anyone else experienced this?

I would certainly stop paying. You pay for a service and it’s no longer being provided therefore the provider can’t possibly expect to still be paid.

The government should be clarifying the situation for both childminders and their customers.

It would be fair to charge a retainer % of fee's to non keyworkers so that the childminder can keep paying their costs and welcome the children back when it's safe to do so. Obviously any childminder looking after keyworkers children should be paid in full. If a childminder closes and isn't prepared to look after keyworkers children and don't have a viable reason for doing so (having parents that are vulnerable isn't a viable reason as the childminder shouldn't be visiting their parents unless they care for them which doesn't seem likely if she's a full time childminder). Dropping off shopping at the door and medication doesn't constitute caring and there's safe ways to do this without going into their house or having contact with them. So in these cases, the keyworker shouldn't have to pay anything because they've been refused a serviced that should still be offered.

Basically, a childminder that looks after 5 non keyworkers children has no control and no choice here. They aren't allowed to keep looking after children of non keyworkers. They need protection from the loss of earnings, they need to able to charge a retainer fee to keep their business alive due to no choice or fault of their own.

A childminder that looks after 2 non keyworkers children and 2 keyworkers children should be able to (unless they have a valid reason like a vulnerable person in their household) keep looking after the 2 keyworkers children for full fee's. If they have a viable reason why they can't, which again is no fault of their own, like a vulnerable person in the household, they can say no to looking after the keyworkers children and charge a retainer %. The retainer charge will also be applicable to the non keyworkers children as again, the childminder has no choice about looking after the children.

A childminder that has chosen to close and say no to looking after keyworkers children with no viable reason can't charge a retainer. They are refusing a service. They can still charge their non keyworkers children a retainer as they have no choice over saying no to them but for the keyworkers, without a solid reason like a vulnerable person in their household or that they provide full time care to a vulnerable person and need direct contact with that vulnerable person then they are simply just refusing a service they can provide and are using the situation to take a holiday and trying to be paid for it

for a full time cm the big ones are 10% of rent, council tax and water rates and 33% of gas and electricity. The other big one is mileage or car costs (depending on how you do it). No you obviously won't be driving around incurring petrol costs but the running costs of the car - possible including a lease - don't vanish instantly
But you don't have to claim the maximum. Some people will genuinely opt to rent a bigger place for the sole purpose of childminding. Similarly, some will only have a car to take childminded kids to school/activities.

However, many will claim it when they rental has remained just the same as has their car loans that they had before, or would have had even if not childminding.

The fact remains that if you opt to maximize your expenses because you can, even though they are not true expenses, you have to accept that in this scenario, you'll be losing out as these expenses still need to be paid without business.

It's not because you can do something within the rules doesn't t mean it applies to everyone.

HMRC have come up with a specific agreement that these rates are what childminders are entitled to claim. That's the actual wording they use. You're having a go at people for claiming the expense rates HMRC stipulate. Do you expect employed people who get a mileage allowance to refuse that too, on the basis their car might cost less to run?

And the assumption that persists is that the deductions are being claimed incorrectly and that's why childminders will now suffer for it - rather than them being legitimate costs that won't just go away during a temporary closure.

I've already said I think this CM is being cheeky - but the ongoing hatred for self employed people in general and childminders in particular on this forum is nauseating.

@StatisticallyChallenged I don’t believe it is wrong at all for CM to claim these HMRC approved expenses! Anybody would do it. The same way that Ltd directors pay themselves partly in dividends, as it is an «HMRC approved» way of paying less tax, completely legal, why wouldn’t they do it?

However, what is a bit annoying is that CM are now saying that it is not fair that these untaxed expenses are not counted as income, but it works that way for all self employed people! To go back to my example of an Ltd director, their dividends won’t be taken into accounts in the 80%, so yes they will earn way less than they were used to (and in their case they did indeed pay tax on dividends, lower than income tax though).

Basically people receive 80% of the amount they paid tax on. You don’t see all self employed people still billing their clients, why do CM act as if it is ok for everybody else to take a hit but not them?

I agree that all self employed have issues due to it being net income when many have immovable fixed costs - I think it maybe just feels closer/more threatening for CM because it's their own domestic bills which now face being unpaid?

The small business support isn't much use if you don't have a rateable premises which is where any wfh businesses as well as people using places like churches are screwed

HMRC have come up with a specific agreement that these rates are what childminders are entitled to claim
Entitled doesn't mean have to! Or similarly, one could say that they are entitled not to get as much income back as they would if they'd claim less expenses.
It's the lack of willingness to accept that it goes on both directions that is annoying.

I think it maybe just feels closer/more threatening for CM because it's their own domestic bills which now face being unpaid
Emotionally yes, but realistically, the loss of income will mean difficulty to pay domestic bills for everybody, CM or not.

Mine had done exactly the same. DH and I are key workers.

In the end I said "really sorry, but I can't afford to pay for two childminders. I've found alternative care now if it's needed, please can we discuss fees."

She said as it was her choice to close, she couldn't expect me to pay two lots, and as such she would keep his place and not charge if I had to put him in alternative childcare. As it would happen, we've not needed to use it yet so we've paid all the same.

I haven't read the thread yet, going back to have a read now. It's probably already been suggested maybe tell her you're going to need to discuss fees, as you're having to pay elsewhere?