Public Liability Insurance

[gardenpixies32]

I contacted the NCMA this week to tell them I wont be working for 9-12 months as I am going on maternity leave. I was outraged that I am still expected to renew and continue paying for my public liability insurance despite the fact that no children or their parents will be in my home for a year! To add insult to injury, you can't take public liability insurance with them unless you also pay for their stupid membership! I have no problem with continuing to pay for my annual Ofsted registration but why should women on maternity leave line the pockets of the NCMA! My maternity allowance is a rubbish 570 per month (for 2 babies) and it makes me feel so cross that I am expected to fork out for this expense too!

What do you think of this?

Can't you get public liability insurance from somewhere else?

when I went on ML I cancelled my PLI and received a small refund and no tie-in to staying with them. This was with Morton Mitchell. Things may have changed as im talking 3 yrs ago. I am still with them and have no reason to go back to NCMA.

Apparently this is a new thing recently passed by Ofsted. I contacted Ofsted who confirmed it but the woman couldn't give me an explanation as to why.

Run I can get insurance from elsewhere, but the same thing will happen.

pixies go to morton, you then only pay PLI not NCMA membership

When I went on ML over 4 years ago, I definitely didn't have to renew so obviously a new thing. I'm with Morton Michel now as they don't rip you off like NCMA, mine is due for renewal very soon and I'll be using them again.

Having to have Public Liability Insurance running continuously has got nothing to do with insurance companies ripping you off. Since it's introduction 4 years ago it is a specific legal requirement within the EYFS as one of the conditions of registration so even if you are not minding if you want to keep your registration in place you MUST maintain your PLI. The same goes for First Aid. It used to be possible to let it lapse during maternity leave etc but you can't now. So blame the DfES/DoE who introduced the EYFS rather than the insurance companies who simply provide the service or Ofsted who just enforce the rules.
Incidentally, NCMA insurance is cheaper than MM BUT you can't benefit from the privilege of this without being an NCMA member which is why it's a more expensive overall package. MM are a specialised insurance brokers (who have branched out into providing enhanced services & products) so no membership fee whereas NCMA as our professional body are more like a union. Having said that I think they need to rethink their fee as I know it puts a lot of people off joining and given the current climate & uncertainties surrounding the future of childminding including possible deregulation they need all the members & clout they can get!

yikes, I am glad I read this thread. I'm about to go on maternity leave (in September) and have let my public liability insurance lapse for this reason.

I rang Ofsted to tell them what I was planning and to ask if it would be possible to keep my registration open. They didn't mention public liability insurance!

I also asked Ofsted if it would be okay to look after friends' children who are already 'on my books' while I was on maternity leave (as a regular favour to my friends and to provide continuity for these children and for my own son) and I was told that this would be absolutely fine. So long as I am not charging anything this will not be seen as 'official childminding' - so why on earth do I need public liability insurance during this time?

Just in case the 'rip off' comment was because of what I said......I wasn't talking about it being a rip off because it has to be continuous, I meant in terms of the whole package being hugely more expensive and that you have to be a member to get their PLI.

Sorry Looney, I was speed reading - should have taken more time
I think the point I was trying to make is that supposedly one of the benefits or perks of being an NCMA member is being able to access their cheaper PLI if that makes sense.

This cannot be correct - no regulation requires you to be insured for something you are not doing. The registration requirement is that you must be covered "in respect of liability which may be incurred..." - if you are not doing any childminding (and looking after kids as a favour is not childminding) then you cannot incur any liability.

What do you think would happen if you cancelled your insurance?

Apparently this is a new thing recently passed by Ofsted. I contacted Ofsted who confirmed it but the woman couldn't give me an explanation as to why.

Now there is a surprise... no explanation, nothing in writing I guess.

As MrAnchovy says, how can you need liability cover during a time when you won't have the possibility of incurring liability.
If Ofsted are saying having public liability cover in place is a requirement of registration, regardless of if someone is actually working or not, then where exactly does it state that in the numerous documents Ofsted produces?

080174 Annex E, does say that if an inspection is carried out, then not having insurance can result in an Action. The inspector has to discuss with inspection team leader prior to giving feedback. The action may be: Provider reaffirms commitment to comply at annual renewal.

So in the event of you getting an inspection whilst you are not childminding, you tell the inspector that you will get insurance prior to providing care.

If you really don't fancy risking having an action on your next Ofsted report, then take out insurance, otherwise let it lapse and get it later.

You won't get an inspection while you are not minding, if you explain you are taking time off for maternity they will ask you when you plan to start working again and reschedule.

Having insurance to cover something you aren't going to do is insane - it would be like having travel insurance without going on holiday!

MrAnchovy and nannynick - I think that what you say is very reassuring.

When I rang Ofsted, I was told that I couldn't be inspected while I was on maternity leave and had no children to be inspected against. So long as gardenpixies and I both have public liability insurance in place by the time we are officially minding again, surely Ofsted can't possibly set an action for something we have already done.

If they can't inspect you whilst you are on maternity leave, how would they know you didn't have insurance?

ChildrenAtHeart is right, it is now a requirement to have insurance at all times so letting it lapse is a failure to meet the requirements (silly because insurance can be arranged almost instantly over the phone/online when you need it but that?s the law).

And Ofsted can enter the premises used for childminding at all reasonable time, whether a childminder is working or not. All the time a childminder is registered Ofsted have the power to enter to investigate a complaint or if they feel there is reason to inspect/ investigate. In other words they don?t need a search warrant, they have more power than the police, so if they did knock on a door wanting to look through paperwork a childminder can not refuse entry.

However you can tell them you are not childminding (maternity leave or just taking a break) and their guidance says they will not conduct a routine inspection when there are no children on the roll so long as the childminder has been inspected within that inspection cycle.

Thanks for the responses. I am still annoyed about it all. According to Ofsted, it is part of the requirement if you are Ofsted registered and that if I don't have the insurance in place they can cancel my membership and it will take 3 or more months to reapply. She couldn't give me the reasoning behind why I need this insurance, she just said it is "a new law that has been passed". I asked her to send me this new "lawful documentation" where this is stated with the reasoning behind it.

The NCMA and other organisations that sell public liability insurance must be rubbing their hands with glee at this new law.

I am not going to renew my insurance in January. I will renew when I start childminding again in June/July.

Stomp I don't think scaremongering is very helpful.

Ofsted do NOT have more powers than the police, for instance they cannot use force to enter premises. And whilst they do have powers to enter in certain circumstances if they did turn up at your door unannounced to 'look at your paperwork' you would have every right to tell them to go away. Of course if they have reason to believe that it is necessary to gain entry immediately and without notice in relation to a safeguarding issue that is a different matter.

But if they wanted to know if you had insurance (other than during a routine or investigatory inspection) the procedure they would follow would be to write to you asking for a copy of your certificate. So making out that the OP is in danger of a troop of Doc Martened Ofsted heavies breaking down her door while she is on Maternity Leave is irresponsible and foolish.

The law does not say that a childminder must "have insurance at all times", it says that a childminder must "be covered by insurance in respect of liability which may be incurred for death, injury, public liability, damage or other loss." Now it could be argued that if you didn't have any insurance for something you weren't doing then you might not be meeting this requirement, but it could equally be argued that there is no liability which could be incurred for which you are not insured and so you are meeting the requirement. But the point is, this argument is not going to happen because noone is going to know that you have cancelled your insurance and Ofsted is not going to inspect you.

I would be very interested if there is any publication from Ofsted setting out anything related to this; there are plenty of people who are prepared to stand up for common sense in relation to childminders.

Crossposted. There is no new law, just a policy invented by someone at Ofsted.

They will not cancel your registration because you are not insured (and if they did you could successfully appeal), if they found out (which they won't) they might issue a notice to comply and then you would get insurance. You would also write to your MP and relevant ministers who are currently looking at unnecessary regulatory burdens and some of whom take a very dim view of policy invented by Ofsted and promulgated as "law" (Ofsted have a bad history of this).

The law from September (EYFS 2012) makes it a statutory requirement that PLI must be held. It does not make any reference to exemption for providers who are still registered but 'taking a break' for some reason. I appreciate what Mr A is saying and I'm not saying I agree with the law or that it isn't possibly open to interpretation as it stands but bottom line is it's up to you whether or not to take the risk. I guess at best Ofsted wouldn't find out, middling would be to place an action to put PLI in place & at worse rescind your registration.

media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/eyfs%20statutory%20framework%20march%202012.pdf
This framework is mandatory for all early years providers (from 1 September 2012)
1 maintained schools, non-maintained schools, independent schools, and all providers on the Early Years Register
2 The learning and development requirements are given legal force by an Order made under Section 39(1)(a) of the Childcare Act 2006. The safeguarding and welfare requirements are given legal force by Regulations made under Section 39(1)(b) of the Childcare Act 2006.

3.62 Providers must carry public liability insurance.

Mr A this policy was not invented by Ofsted, it was created by the DoE. All Ofsted do is enforce the rules. I understand that in many cases the law is a ass but I'm not sure you should be encouraging people to break it. Yes by all means write to your MP etc. to argue for a change but in the meantime & until such time as it is changed (if ever) you need to decide for yourself what the risk is in breaking the law (not just an Ofsted policy) and whether or not you are prepared to deal with the potential consequences

Not read the thread but dh gets his PLI from simplu business and they are very good and reasonable.

But EYFS also says othet things that need to be done. It does not say before each one that they apply if children are being cared for at the time.
So I feel EYFS applies when children are beibg cared for but hard to enforce when no children on roll.

Hope care standards tribunal get to rule on it at some stage. Insurance should not be needed when there is nothing to insure against. If someone has a driving licence but no car, they don't need insurance. Why should childcare be different?

I don't disagree Nick but as it doesn't state that it doesn't apply during periods of non-operation the presumption (& Ofsted interpretation) is that it applies at all times during registration. It is not law to have insurance if you don't own a car, it IS law to have PLI as part of a provider's childcare registration. I'm not saying this is right but it is what is currently in place

I agree with MrA and Nannynick on this one. The new EYFS has been badly written in places, for example (think it's point 3.42 or something like that, can't be bothered to go and check) it states about the number of children we can care for and mentions about being able to go to 4 in the EY age group in the case of a sibling or childminder baby (again can't be bothered to type the full wording) so you could say that under no circumstances could we care for a sibling that isn't a BABY and also that we can't for 'continuity of care' reasons when in actual fact we CAN go to 4 EY children under these circumstances.

As a few people on here know, I love a good arguement with Ofsted, I am no longer 'scared' of what they say and put on documentation, I will now quite happily argue my point to the end and I feel on this issue there wouldn't be much they could do. A while back I had some awful stupid things come out from an inspection carried out following a malicious complaint, this meant that the complaint went on file for everyone to see. Although it took 6 months to fully fight all points, I eventually won and every single point was removed and of course the complaint. I actually got an apology too and the inspector got into trouble for it. I could have easily not fought it and had a permanent black mark against my name. So my advice to all childminders who may get into a situation they don't agree with, argue your point!!

Back to insurance...there is no reason whatsoever I could see for them winning such a case under these circumstances, if it ever got that far. I'm not telling people what they should do, I'm just saying that if it was me in this situation, I'd be saving my pennies and not lining the pockets of insurance companies for no reason!