AIBU:Should I pay my CM even though I gave her sufficient notice?

[Needadvice2018]

Hello,
I’ve changed my name just incase my CM sees.

Basically, my CM had my daughter through out term time since last September. I pay her a month in advance. I told her in July that I no longer needed her to look after my child as she would be going to nursery from September.
I assumed this would be sufficient notice as it’s 6 weeks plus. She’s now saying that as my child only does term time she needed 4 weeks notice during term time and I need to pay for September :/
My child is only contracted for term time but I assumed the 4 weeks notice wouldn’t need to be during term time. She’s now threatening to add late fees on top of what I owe her!
Should I pay her for September even though she knew 6 weeks ago she wouldn’t have my child?

Jannie - you would hope they'd seen the contract wouldn't you?

@jannier there is no such thing as a reasonableness test for breach of contract. In order to recover damages loss of income must be proven; however if she has already filled her vacant place than it wouldn't apply here.
Please stop talking like you know if what you're talking about because you obviously don't.

I was asking for advice on whether the contract terms were ambiguous or whether I'd misread them.

Needadvice2018 - I know I haven't studied law since graduating (as part of my degree and only business law) and in the last 20 plus years have only been a lowly child-minder but I'm not totally stupid, when the court looks at the contract and each individual term in dispute they will assess the clause against its reasonableness they also look at custom and practice within the industry. Have you said that she filled her space before the end of the notice period?
Get legal advice I keep saying it but all you want is people to say don't pay don't pay. Seeing as you already seem to think youknow the answer why post in the first place? You start saying you have changed you name in case the cm sees then later you post her letter accidently leaving her details on, I guess she is too stupid to recognise her own letter being only a child-minder. Who you kept in the dark to wriggle out of notice period (seeing as you refuse repeatedly to give any other explanation). Lets face it you saw the clause and thought If I don't tell her until I don't need her I wont have to pay it but she hasn't just gone away...get legal advice if your in the right.

Whoa, easy there please.

@jannier you claim you're not totally stupid but can't even use the correct 'you're', which is basic English.
The courts don't look at each individual clause and assess it on reasonableness, there is simply no such thing in contract law. Considering I actually have a law degree and graduated last year I think I'm in a better position to speak on that don't you?

I was asking for advice on whether or not the contract terms were in fact ambiguous or whether I had simply misconstrued them. I wasn't asking for people to represent me in court.

I gave her 6 weeks notice which is more than sufficient for her to fill her place. It's not like I didn't say anything to her and then just didn't take my LG back in September. I don't need to give you an explanation as to why I gave her 6 weeks notice instead of 7.5 or 12.2 weeks or whatever other arbitrary number you would've preferred, because guess what? It's none of your business what happens in my personal life.

That was left in by mistake as I was too busy truing to remove the smaller details in text that I forgot to remove it. It was taken down and I reposted the image without it visible so it was up for less than an hour. It's irrelevant and you're just trying to pick things out.

I also find it pretty sad that someone in their mid 40s (gonna assume so considering you graduated 20 years ago) is trying to argue with a 24 year old .

Okay so your ageist as well and saying anyone in their 40's has no right to an opinion. Are you saying then that once we hit 40, or OMG even older, we know nothing at all, have lost all ability to function and are looking forward to a life in nappies ready for the scrap heap. We should bow down to the all knowing 24 year olds and just say yes of course your absolutely right.
I'm well aware of correct spelling and punctuation but like many people I use spell check as I'm in a hurry.
So you are a graduate in contact law trained to draw up and negotiate contracts who needs to come on here and ask about a contract question, hmm which law school was that then? Surely if you have a problem that you don't feel was adequately covered in your studies you could approach one of your lecturers and ask them or are they too old for you to think worthy of an opinion now you have finished studying and know everything about anything.
Reasonableness is used in law in ascertaining fairness of contract and recompense. Maybe have a look on the number 99 and find some.

.

CHANCER!

Interestingly, because of your law degree you should be aware this entire thread is libel. So you might want to check that, because it was up for 1.5hours, and she was identifiable for 1.5hours, so she, or someone who knows her, or even someone who doesn't know her but now has her contact details, and goodness knows how many other anonymous people in MN, have seen it.

@Frusso

How is it libel? OP hasn't made any untrue comments. The childminder did lose a shoe. The childminder is charging for the month or September. The childminder is adding a fee of £12 a day for non payment.

There isn't anything in this post which could be described as libellous. OP can show that letter to as many people as she likes; there is no right to privacy over that.

@jannier I'd let it go there, I think OP knows what she's talking about and it's pretty obvious you don't...

Are you sure about that spacezombies? You can 100% say that what OP has said is the truth? It's her version of the truth.

Because OP has claimed CM wasn't paying attention to all children in her care, calls her unprofessional, and implies she was neglectful. And why? Because she's been asked to pay for the notice period, and she doesn't want to.
And it could be construed as malicious, for example the shoe incident clearly wasn't that much of an issue before OP gave notice, or she'd have done something about being compensated at the time, or about CM apparently not paying attention to mindees.
But now CM has asked for notice to be paid, CM doesn't pay attention to children in her care, but OP didn't remove child at that point.

Can I ask if it's an official contract(pacey or Morton michel) or written by her?
If she's decided not to buy them she might be in for a shock. The official ones do contain that detail she wants but is often on the back in small print.

HavelockVetinari....hmm really UCTA 1977 (unfair contract terms act 1977) discusses amongst many things reasonableness and the test of. Article 50 April 18 talks about Excessive compensation, now as it was April 18 has a childminder brought an action and lost on high late fees even if they can show that the fees covered the charges she incurred for unauthorised overdrafts, bounced payments those returned payments incurring charges from the originator- doubt if its been to court yet. (may be wrong but doubt it) were the parties of unequal bargaining power - well one seems to be legally qualified so obviously wouldn't have knew to read thoroughly or understood the implications of the small print so room for negotiation. Reference to the number 99 - the law uses the phrase what an ordinary man would believe/think etc....defines a reasonable man as one you would find on the number 99 omnibus.
Article 50 was triggered and leave campaigners are arguing its invalid but that's still an argument by the way.

woolduvet -interesting point because article 50 would suggest you have a stronger case to argue unfair terms if its a brought in pre printed contract and not an individually negotiated one that both parties had the ability to discuss terms for.

frusso you didn't say 'this thread could be construed as libel if in anyway the OP has misrepresented the facts' you said 'this entire thread is libel' - bit of a difference I think - unless you are privy to information about the OP and the childminder that the rest of us aren't?

My comment about the op not wanting the cm to recognise her so she changed her name was raised because later on she publishes her letter that even if details were removed would actually out her to the cm, maybe though the cm is a senile 40 year old and wouldn't recognise her own letter.

@wooldovet it's not a Morton Mitchell one, they have a different layout.

unless you are privy to information about the OP and the childminder that the rest of us aren't? that's the rub isn't it myrtlewilson, you don't know whether I am or not, and OP doesn't know if anybody who's read this thread is or not.

@myrtleWilson

It's not about making sure the cm doesn't recognise this situation. She will have changed her name so the that if the cm sees this thread, she wouldn't be able to do an advanced search on the username and find all her other threads. Maybe OP had previous threads where she has asks for advice on personal issues which she doesn't want anyone in real life to know about. If the cm sees this thread, she will only know that her former client posted about her... She won't know anything else OP has posted about.

Comment above was in reply to @jannier. O tagged the wrong name. Sorry @myrtleWilson!!!

Re the letter and the assertions that it makes about the wording. For the statement that the 'contractual notice period is the period set out in the contracted hours section' to be true there would need to be a definitions section to that effect which form part of the contract.

Also the part about all supporting policies and documentation is utterly irrelevant unless those policies and documents are incorporated into the contract by an additional clause which states that in the contract. An example would be a clause which states 'this contract is to include the additional term and conditions contained in the attached regulations' and you would then also have to have received a copy of the said regs.

From the except you've provided we cannot see if those additional parts have been included in the contract you signed. If not they can be disregarded.

In addition where a contract has been reduced to writing a Court is extremely unlikely to allow additional verbal statements to be deemed to have formed part of the contract so anything she said to you can likewise be disregarded.

I am a childminder and it really depends what you signed at the time of your contract,try and dig the contract out,I always make sure the parent takes the contract away and never signs anything in haste for after school i do 2 weeks notice for full time 1 month ,personally i think you have given sufficient notice,she has had ample opportunity to find a replacement for your daughters space,the summer i get inundated with requests for after school requests,in the north we would say she is beeing a bit brass necked!! trying to squeeze money out of you,lets hope there is nothing in the contract to say when you have to give notice.good luvk

silv55 - the OP has posted the contract already on page 2. It doesn't mention anything about the notice period excluding any time when the child isn't attending.

I would recommend that you reply in writing and state that changes to the notice period were not discussed at any point and her own contract does not mention anything about notice periods not being valid during school holidays.

Any news on this op? May be useful to others in future.

@AdoreTheBeach

I emailed her back a couple of weeks ago explaining to her that her contract was poorly drafted and didn't mean what she thought it meant and that putting things in letters doesn't make it legally binding along with stuff about how her pre-action protocol letter was incorrectly drafted as well and so far she's not got back to me about anything! Still waiting to see if she'll actually bother taking me to court.

Good for you. Let’s hope you don’t hear from her again. What a shame she couldn’t simply accept the notice you gave her as now you’ll only have a poor memory of her as a child minder.