Childminders

[Jbr]

Oftsed are concerned that people who take payment for giving children pre-school education in their homes (ie childminders) may not be registered.

It's certainly very worrying. However, if you don't take payment, you don't have to be registered, which is even more worrying.

education.guardian.co.uk/ofsted/story/0,7348,785979,00.html

jbr the article is about people giving DAYCARE in their homes not about giving pre- school education.

It is illegal to look after anyones 's child for more than two hours for any sort of reward, monetary or otherwise withour being registered. But then nannies do it, but as it is in the parent's home it doesn't count. All the more reason for some form of register for nannies, I don't have a problem with that as I am nanny, and I am also a registered childminder.

My friend and I know of many people who 'mind' illegally, and we have reported them and nothing is ever done. The point is, if the person is not registered, they will not have insurance so that child is at risk.

People will go on minding illegally as along as parents go on paying them and not asking to see their registration and insurance certificates and their latest inspection report.

If people refused to use a non registered childminder, the 'minder' would have to give up or register. These people also do it for cash in hand. cheaper and have too many children, registered childminders keep records, accounts, and pay tax!

I hope to be able to give preschool education when I am accredited, but I will then be subject to an inspection visit every six weeks, to ensure quality of care and education. I will have to do lots of further training as well at my own cost, but it's worth it as many parents want to keep their children at home or in a home environment instead of pushing them into the system too soon and too young.

It was in the "Education" section of the newspaper. It was seen primarily as an education issue. The education "watchdog" were concerned.

AND WAS THERE ANY NEED TO SHOUT?

jbr I think Alibubbles was just trying to clarify with the capitals. And it seems as if the two of you are basically in agreement.

I think people are amazingly lax about who they will leave their children with when you consider how uptight they are about letting the children (OK older children) out on their own. And yes I realise this is a generalisation.

I agree Bozza, I know someone who's loaded (wouldn't think twice about spending £200 on a pair of sunglasses) and refuses to send her son to a nursery/registered childminder ("costs too much" - instead leaves him with someone who's been recommended, but unregistered. Presumably that means uninsured as well as a completely unknown quantity. surely it's not that hard to get registered?

Makes me wonder why these people don't register...

Jbr, don't be so sensitive, I wasn't shouting, It's not possible to do italics on here. I was only clarifying what the article stated as Bozza says, and it is very important to differentiate between the two.

Very few childminders are qualified to deliver the pre-school curriculum and indeed want to interms of the renumeration one gets for childminding.

The words you used to quote the article was a misrepresentation of the facts.

Bundle, I know what you mean, in another site someone was asking for a cheap second hand buggy to take to the childminders as she didn't trust her with her new three wheeler!! I couldn't help sending an answer saying, but you trust her with your child!

Sometimes peoples sense of value is baffling to say the least!

My ds has an unregistered nanny who is fantastic but unregistered. She's also cash in hand. I am very picky and I trust her totally. I have checked out her references very carefully and she cared for him in my home so I could see how she was with him, now she does a nannyshare and cares for him at the other mother's home. It's fine by me. I don't see why it is such a concern. I don't think registration is a magic wand that makes someone a great childcarer - or paying tax is so important, come to that. I've paid tax on that income already, so don't see why it should be double taxed. The lack of tax breaks on childcare is a disgrace, so I don't feel at all guilty about paying cash in hand.

Also, I think pre-school education is a horrible concept. Let the poor mites play!

Oh aloha, I knew that we couldn't go on like this with you so eloquently expressing views which I totally agree with. Yes, I agree that there should be tax breaks for childcare but to not pay the tax - ooo, I definately disagree with that!!

aloha. I also feel that children are pushed into education far too early, especially boys. The boy I care for should have gone to nursery at Easter and I said to the mum I think he is too young, fortunately she agreed with me and the difference in him now is incredible! He is now ready for that step, before he wouldn't have left either of us without crying, now he is happy to go off with a big smile!

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean being on a register makes a nanny any better, it makes it easier to check references and CRB records etc.

I agree with you about you having paid tax on your income and the double tax thing, but I would be very concerned about being paid cash in hand, she should be paying tax, I appreciate the expense of paying employers rtax and NIC's, but you could find both of you in serious trouble if ever you get caught out.
Won't your nanny need pay slips one day to prove her income if she needs a mortgage and what about maternity and sick pay?

I would much prefer to be paid cash in hand, but having had regular tax inspections, I prefer to be above board!

Also, what about the implications for the Nanny's pension?. I personally would be unhappy that someobody had clear evidence of me breaking the law - what if things turned nasty with her one day?

alibubbles, i've heard of people not trusting nannies to be on their car insurance too! defies belief

Regarding my nanny's references, she has worked in childcare so has been police-checked and has great professional references. I don't feel guilty about the tax thing because I have already paid income tax on the money I give her. I don't see why I should give the government double tax - my old employers didn't pay me out of their own income so I don't see why I should be worse off than the bosses of a great big corporation. As for her benefits etc, she was the one who wanted cash in hand, we didn't press her at all. She gets holiday pay etc. I suppose she could blackmail us later, but a. I trust her, otherwise I wouldn't hand my son over to her. b. she would then be liable for shedloads of unpaid tax herself and would be in trouble with the revenue, so I don't think it would be to her advantage. It saves me a lot of money, means I don't have to work EVERY evening, and keeps my dosh away from Tony & Gordon and their plans to waste it on bombs. If she changed her mind and wanted tax in NI paid, then I'd go with that, but I'm certainly not going to force her!

I may well be wrong but I had thought it was the employers responsibility to inform the revenue etc rather than the employee. Would be curious to know.

Ah, but we all do self-assessment now, so if she's not paying tax she won't be declaring it on her form, so we're all this this terrible, illegal conspiracy together...

Didn't make it clear - I had thought that it was the employers resposnibility to ensure that all proper taxes and NI etc was paid rather than the employees. I would be genuinely interested to know if this is the case or not. Any tax experts out there?

I think you're right, Croppy (as, apart from anything else the employee can plead ignorance as they don't normally have anything to do with taxes), unless the employee is in fact self-employed (which can no longer be the case if there is only 1 client/employer).

Aloha - shame on you. I kind of see your argument on tax, but NI is important and obviously your NI payments cannot count for your nanny.

If Aloha is in a nanny share then there is more than one employer.

But Aloha I did notice on another thread you were complaining about the choice of school for your son but on this thread you are prepared to justify not paying all your tax which doesn't add up to me. Sorry not really meaning to have a go at you because I'm not sure what I would do in your position - can't afford a nanny though so have to pay nursery fees and they in turn pay the tax. 100% agree with you about child care being tax deductible though.

I couldn't get into a nursery if I wanted to - you should see the waiting lists round here! And IMO I DO pay all my tax - as I said, I've paid the income tax on that income, I just don't agree that I should pay income tax out of income-taxed income, that truly seems unfair and wrong to me. And frankly, the nanny would rather be paid cash in hand, so why would I argue? Would you honestly do it despite her wishes? Yes, I'm glad she wants to do it that way, as otherwise work would be more difficult to make money out of, and we certainly need the money. I strongly suspect she won't be declaring the income on her tax return, which I suppose makes us all as bad as each other. However, until proper tax relief is introduced for childcare (as opposed to drink, restaurant meals, big cars etc) I shall feel remarkably guilt-free about this matter. BTW I suspect the schools round here are running with cash, and that's not the problem. I think that probably lies elsewhere - in incompetence, I suspect. I don't think I'll defend my position any more, as I am comfortable with it.

Does anyone know if you can claim any tax relief for childcare/nursery fees etc. I'm partially self-employed, and can claim most things, but don't know if this can be claimed - I'm not optimistic judging from your last post Aloha...

musica, - no you can't, but I think you could start up your own childcare voucher scheme - using childcare vouchers as part of your salry if you draw one. Go to Busy Bees website, if you can't find it I'll try for you. Or give them a call. they are supposed to be very helpful, you don't have to use their nursery to do so, but if you do. you get a bigger discount.
At least you would save 10% NIC

I can't remember who said it but I don't see how it's ok for a girl to go to education "early" but not a boy. I did however, read something somewhere which said boys should be allowed to stay off until they are 7!

Also, pre-school education doesn't have the same regime as "normal" education. It's usually education through play.

Aloha, I agree with you. A friend of mine has a similar arrangement with her unregistered minder (an ex-nursery nurse and trusted friend). She does it cash in hand because she is on benefits and couldn't afford to live if she child-minded full time. My friend's child gets one-to-one care, which is what both parties want. By the way, my DS's first childminder was registered. She refused to replace her broken stair-gate when DS began toddling, took in ironing and did it all day long, left children alone in cars while she did her shopping at the other end of the street... obviously I stopped sending him when I found out, and reported her, but nothing was done. I know all childminders are not like this, before you jump on me, but my experience with the childcare inspectorate has left me with a very jaundiced view of the whole process.