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?

No one can know for sure what would happen... Ofsted are probably only guessing themselves as they don't make the law. If Ofsted decided to remove someone's registration purely for the reason of them not having insurance whilst they were NOT childminding, then the childminder concerned I feel should take it up with the Care Standards Tribunal who would make a decision. The CST don't always agree with Ofsted. They might look at what was intended by the wording in EYFS - is it intended to cover situations where there are no children present? The board would make a decision and then Ofsted and the childminder have to abide by that ruling. Until such a ruling exists, I feel any childcare inspector insisting that insurance is in place when someone is NOT childminding, is open to being challenged.

For those people who are actually faced with this problem... use your own common sense to decide what to do based on your accepted risk level.

Meanwhile if anyone meets with Elizabeth Truss, maybe they could raise this issue with her - if EYFS is to be said to be in force even when a childcare provider is not providing care, is that an unnecessary regulatory burden?

May I suggest that this topic is posted in NCMA Local so that it is open to members and non members to discuss....posted under My Working Environment should do the trick, NCMA read the posts so we are likely to get a direct reply, spark a debate and see if we can change things, after all we are the members

When people are not c/minding for whatever reason they should be allowed to get a rebate on their insurance ...after all no one is in the home that needs covering....as the EYFS does not apply when not working

I wish people would stop thinking of so much red tape to keep strangling us with....isn't the Childcare Commission about that? reduce unnecessary 'regulation'?

Thanks Nannynick for posting on NCMA Local..I have replied and hope many more will contribute to your post

Could someone please post the link on here.

NCMALocal

Thanks

Just one clarification I apologise if I gave wrong impression
I was referring to those who wish to take a break such as maternity leave...they remain registered but should not require insurance for that period
If they deregister altogether then they have to restart the process

I was not talking of dipping in and out of registration
You are right Nannynick if one does not have children on roll they still need to be registered and insured as they can still undergo an inspection

I hope that it has not changed ..

I'm on holiday at the moment so not able to keep up properly...

Unfortunately NCMA have already had a bite of this cherry and appear to have decided that Ofsted's perverse policy decisions were more important than their own members' interests and common sense.

ChildrenAtHeart will you STOP telling people they may be breaking the law by failing to comply with Ofsted's interpretation of conditions of registration. There are offences under the Act - for instance saying that you are not childminding because you are on ML when in fact you are - but non-compliance with a condition of registration is not one of them.

MrAnchovy It wasn?t my intention to scare monger, or to suggest that Ofsted are going to break down doors, that is indeed ridiculous. But you only have to do a search to find childminders having compliance notices and monitoring visits put in place because they did not have insurance when Ofsted visited because of a complaint, many with no children on the roll.

If a childminder lets their insurance cover lapse, that is their decision. But the OP was outraged that the NCMA wanted her to pay for membership & insurance, I was pointing out that insurance is a legal requirement and the worse-case consequences of failing to have insurance in place if Ofsted come visiting.
If the OP decides to continue to be insured she can find a cheaper option with another company- £42 I believe- which is affordable for the year.
My opinion is anyone prepared to fight Ofsted rather than pay £42 probably needs their heads examined :)

Some people seem happy to ignore a requirement (this is not aimed at OP- I feel her & share her frustration) and tell everyone else that it should be ignored based on their opinion that it is wrong or wasteful or simply that ?they know best? which is not helpful to the rest of us doing our utmost working within the legal requirements.
And i'd rather listen to ChildrenAtHeart who is a particularly knowledgeable working childminder :)

If any individual or the NCMA want to challenge this then good luck to them, but I believe the NCMA have already tried, and failed.

EY261660 Complaint Visit 27/Sept/2011, "Public liability insurance was not in place; however, currently the childminder has no children on roll and understands that should this change that this would need to be obtained."

No action was given at that complaint visit with regard to the insurance not being in place. The childminder remained registered.

Whilst that is just one inspection visit, it does not show that Ofsted issue a compliance notice and do monitoring visits following a complaint of that nature. At least, it didn't on that occasion. Could anyone link to a report where a compliance notice was issued for the lack of insurance, as I would be interested in seeing that.

As per the document I linked to a while back... an inspection team manager has to sign this sort of thing off and makes a decision as to if an Action is put on the report, or not. I would expect that the inspection team manager uses common sense to determine if it is a minor breach or major given the circumstances involved in the individual case.

For the sake of £42 you are right, not worth fighting as an individual but NCMA members should really get NCMA to keep on fighting it, if Ofsted does issue compliance notices for this minor breach of regulation. Just my view of course.

Has anyone registered with Ofsted recently? Did you buy your insurance before or after you got your registration certificate, and if you brought it before did Ofsted require to see a copy of it?

Well I'm one of those who clearly needs my head examining as on principal alone (as in the world's gone mad with this stuff and I like to fight our corner!), I WOULD (personally, not suggesting others do) risk this as I would love the opportunity to challenge Ofsted again!

Anyway, I've just emailed Ofsted giving a scenario, my thoughts and asked them to clarify the position on this in writing so we'll see what they come back with. As I said in my last message, even Ofsted agree that the EYFS has been badly written in places.

I'll be interested to see their reply, lets hope its a sensible one :) and they have got better recently at actually answering questions so fingers crossed.

A bit scary that someone's record of complaints has been published with the EY number...she/he could easily be identified
Is that allowed or in breach of Data Protection?

I feel that with everything in the EYFS it is all down to interpretation but that can be very individual and so confusing
Why does someone not call NCMA for explanation...mind you with the post in the NCMA Forum they may come back and clarify...lets hope so

Italiana - how else are Ofsted supposed to publish reports? They can't use the childminders name, or postcode, so the only thing they can use (and it is unique to the provider) is to use the URN. Using an URN to find out a childminders name is quite difficult, usually... though sometimes a LA may publish a list which has both on it.

I meant to publish it here.. you could have quoted from it ? how did you know about this particular person or particular complaint..you must have done lots of research to spot it?

I am sure you know the reason why our identity is protected although we can now choose to give all our details to the public..hope people think twice about it!! as a nanny you are of course safe from all this.

Very basic Google search, was the first one I read, so took about 2 minutes of research, if that!

No point in quoting something without linking the source as the quote can not be read in context by those who wish to do so. The document is publicly available and does not identify the individual.

Well Mr A, perhaps I am being a bit thick here but as implementing the EYFS is a legal requirement for all childcare providers, including childminders, and having PLI is a mandatory requirement of the EYFS (as it is currently written) how is breaching this NOT breaking the law? No, it is not a criminal offence but it is still a breach of requirements for registration and as such subject to potential action by Ofsted. I'm not saying Ofsted would take any action other than pointing out the error of the provider's ways but they could.
All I'm trying to say is that just because you don't agree with a requirement/law it doesn't mean you can ignore it and go your own way. That way surely lies anarchy.
Stomp, thank you for your kind words!

From the Inspectors' Conducting Early Years Inspections Guidance

Failure to meet conditions of registration or notify Ofsted of a significant event
Where a provider does not comply with a condition of registration and/or fails to notify us of a significant event, they commit an offence, unless they have a reasonable excuse. Our enforcement tariff means that, as with all other failures to meet legal requirements, inspectors should take a proportionate approach taking into account the impact of the failure on children?s well-being. We do not always have to take statutory action for failures to comply with conditions or to notify Ofsted of events but we must always bring any such failure and its seriousness to the provider?s attention.
Where inspectors find such a failure during an inspection, they need to consider a course of action that enables us to apply the escalating tariff fairly, so that a provider is given an opportunity to put things right before we proceed to tribunal or court. Inspectors should treat any failures to meet conditions or to notify found at inspection in the same way as they would if we found conditions were not met as a result of an investigation. A proportionate approach is to assess the impact of the breach, any excuse the provider has, and the provider?s attitude and willingness to comply. For a first breach and/or where the impact is minor and/or where there was no deliberate intention to avoid compliance, we do not need to move to our statutory enforcement action. At inspection, inspectors should assess the impact of the failure on the quality of the provision and the ability of the provider to meet the needs of all children when coming to their inspection judgement.
It is not appropriate for inspectors to issue a notice to improve. This is because it either tells the provider what the condition already says, or where there is a failure to notify, tells the provider not to do it again. There is no remedial action a provider can take to bring about improvement.
Inspectors should include an explicit statement about the failure to meet the condition of registration or failure to notify Ofsted of something in the inspection report. However inspectors should not refer to the failure as an offence (unless a regulatory inspector has attended the provision to caution the provider for a possible offence and recorded in a pocket notebook, that the provider admits the offence). This will act in the same way as a warning letter to the provider and it will also ensure that it is brought to the attention of the provider and parents.

Sorry Nannynick ....what did you actually Google? someone with a complaint about lack of PLI and for what reason?
do you lurk or research on the Ofsted website to find out about complaints and then blog their Ofsted number...it is not that difficult to identify the provider...strange past time...we can all make a mistake and to have it put on a forum is highly questionable

This is really out of control so I AM OUT

Gardenpixies32...I totally agree that while on maternity leave you should not need a PL Insurance as no children will be cared for by you
I feel that in these cases c/ms should receive a rebate
I have expressed this view in the NCMA Forum

May I suggest you bring it to the attention of the Committee Chair in your Regional Forum...the next meetings are in September for all areas and it should be on the agenda
If you can access NCMA Local Forum I would also post it there and open the debate in My Business and see how others feel...good luck

I registered with Ofsted just under a year ago, and was NOT required to have insurance as a condition of registration (and believe me, my inspector is known countywide as unbelievably tough). When I had my first inspection visit obviously I had a mindee on roll and then had insurance in place.

I will be on maternity leave from March next year and have no intention of maintaining insurance while I am not working, though I will maintain my Ofsted registration so I don't have to reregister again. I've been told several times that they won't inspect if I have no children on roll so there's no chance of being inspected while I am taking maternity leave. I think it is perfectly ok to use one's common sense in this - they can't require you to be insured against something you're not doing. It's true that the language of section 3.62 says Providers must carry PLI - but if you're not working then you're not a provider.

and there lies the rub as it could be argued that as long as you remain registered you are a provider

I would like to emphasise that I am not supporting this interpretation, just stating that this is the interpretation most LEA's are using in their guidance to CM's and I haven't heard anything to the contrary from Ofsted. I am playing devil's advocate I guess...

Like I said I am on holiday and i don't have all my references to hand but as I recall it a "condition of registration" is something that is written on your certificate with which which you must comply so the text that you quoted does not mean that Ofsted think that failure to comply with the EYFS is a offence.

I don't think there is much point taking this up through the NCMA, as I say they seem to have tried once and given up. I will take it up when I return, if anyone would like to quote specific conversations or preferably written communications they have had with Ofsted or any publication by NCMA, local groups etc. it would be most helpful, please send CAT or post as a message on my web site.

Italiana I think Nick was simply following up on stomp's suggestion that you could easily find reports of Ofsted threatening termination of registration for childminders without insurance during periods of non-minding whereas the first one Nick found demonstrated exactly the opposite. I am afraid that if someone wanted to find out detailed information about a childminder's affairs they wouldn't bother with Mumsnet.

Precisely ChildrenAtHeart, there are two possible interpretations; one which leads to a common sense result (you don't need insurance for something you are not doing) and one which leads to a nonsense, increased cost for childminders and threats of cancellation of registration or even prosecution from the uninformed.

It does not matter whether you or I or even Ofsted adopt either of these interpretations, as a court would decide what applies. However it would be more desirable for the DfE to clarify the matter, and this is what I will pursue.