Top up fees refund

[marmaladeandpeanutbutter]

Hopefully this helps someone

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/12/father-refund-nursery-in-england-fees-investigation?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

This was a while ago and has already instigated tbe change in statutory guidance for how settings must charge and invoice their customers.

You're thinking of the court case in Bournemouth that changed the guidance.
This is post-guidance change, a family took a nursery in Bristol to the ombudsman to get their money back.

These top ups aren't going anywhere as they are the only was providers can remain sustainable. Instead the change of statutory guidance following the Bournemouth case is just leading to in many cases less flexible childcare as providers are limiting when the free funds hours can be taken and in some cases increases costs to parents who may only be attending for a couple of days as providers set their funded sessions for short windows in the middle of the day. Or providers will offer a much reduced dumbed down offer if running a opt in/out to additional fees. If a parent opts out their child will not for example get to access forest school, the baby yoga, won't get to partake in celebrations and festivals etc.

Why would anyone want to do this? Nurseries are only topping up to survive. If parents start protesting about these (MINIMAL) fees the nurseries will close. Where will we be then; there's already a massive shortage of places.

Minimal? The article clearly states: 'He then complained to the ombudsman and was refunded the £1,173 he had paid in top-up fees over five months.' That works out to about £235 per month — hardly what most would consider minimal.

@LianneVaughan £235 a month for what is likely a full time place is a bargain??????

A “bargain”? You do realise the £235/month was just the top up, not the full nursery fee, right? Have you read the article?

Yes, so all he was paying to have his child looked after for a month !

I'd call that 'only'.

No — and maybe read the article before jumping in. The £235/month was not the full cost of childcare. It was the illegal top-up fee charged on top of the government-funded hours.

This wasn’t about paying for childcare — it was about being forced to pay for extras that were supposed to be optional, which is why the ombudsman ruled in the parent’s favour and ordered a refund. The law isn’t suspended just because some people think the price “sounds fine.”

If you're going to comment, at least make sure you're clear on the basic facts.

Perfectly clear, and is what I was responding too, thanks.

This could all be so easily solved by just changing the language and just giving qualifying parents a voucher for the amount, to be used by parents in the same way you use any gift voucher.

If it was perfectly clear, your original comment didn’t show it. It came across like you thought the £235 was the full monthly cost, which it wasn’t. If you read the article you would see that the parent was paying £1,033 a month.

As for vouchers, I agree that would probably be better. But the current issue isn’t just how the funding is delivered — it’s that some nurseries are breaking the rules by charging parents for things that should be optional, without making that clear. That’s exactly why this parent got a refund.

Changing the system won’t help if providers aren’t even following the current one.