Can i look after children without being registered?

[twinkletoes5]

Hi, totally new to all this, i'm not registered yet (done everything and have my disclosure, policy's etc done) so just waiting for them to come and inspect me and give me a registration number (all going well) but i've not heard anything from them for months.
I've had people ask me to look after their children after school once term starts in less than a week and i'm just wondering if i'm allowed to do that without being registered yet????

[Chatterbox Childcare]

Sorry but no - you are not cleared

My advice is to get on the phone and chase Ofsted, find out what stage you are at.

have you done your start up course? If not and you are not approved by end of this month you will have to start again once you have done the course.

[marnieb]

no, you can't.... you need to phone Ofsted & find out what the hold up is, at this stage it's most likely to be you or your partners crb check slowing things down, for some unknown reason some are really quick, and some seem to take months.....

[Mouse]

There are certain circumstances where you can look after children without the need to be registered, so it is possible that you could start after school care before you're regsitered.

This factsheet explains the times when you don't need to be registered

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/factsheet-childcare-registration-not-required

So, if you only looked after children who are over 8, or if the children were with you for less than 2 hours a day, or if you didn't take any money, then you are OK to do it. A local cm got round it by taking children on, not taking any money, then billing for it all once her certificate was through. Not something I'd recommend though as you run the risk of a big debt building up.

But, you would have to make it very clear to parents that you weren't registered and had no PL insurance.

[Mouse]

have you done your start up course? If not and you are not approved by end of this month you will have to start again once you have done the course.

I'm sure I've read that if you are part way through the registration process at the changeover, you will still have 6mnths to do the course.

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I'm sure I've read that if you are part way through the registration process at the changeover, you will still have 6mnths to do the course.

We were told that register by Sept or you have to do the course before they will register you

[bunyip]

So, if you only looked after children who are over 8, or if the children were with you for less than 2 hours a day, or if you didn't take any money, then you are OK to do it. A local cm got round it by taking children on, not taking any money, then billing for it all once her certificate was through. Not something I'd recommend though as you run the risk of a big debt building up.



I agree there are certain permissible circumstances, as per the Ofsted document. I always think the 2-hour rule makes a mockery of safeguarding. Surely if somebody wants to harm a child, then 1 hour 55 is plenty of time?

I'm worried by what your 'local CM' did and can't see how that's legal. If she was billing parents for care provided before registration, then it's illegal. Sending the bills out late doesn't change anything. :panic:

If retrospective billing made everything alright, then pubs would be fine to sell lager to 14 year olds, just so long as they settle the tab on their 18th birthday.

[Mouse]

I agree there are certain permissible circumstances, as per the Ofsted document. I always think the 2-hour rule makes a mockery of safeguarding. Surely if somebody wants to harm a child, then 1 hour 55 is plenty of time?

I'm worried by what your 'local CM' did and can't see how that's legal. If she was billing parents for care provided before registration, then it's illegal. Sending the bills out late doesn't change anything. :panic:

If retrospective billing made everything alright, then pubs would be fine to sell lager to 14 year olds, just so long as they settle the tab on their 18th birthday.

She checked with Ofsted and was told it was withing the rules. She also had her Ofsted visit while the children were there. It's a technicality maybe, but as she wasn't charging for the childcare she was within the rules. She didn't charge anything before she was registered, but charged a big fee once her certificate came through. As there was no mention of it being for childcare before she was registered, it was OK.

As for your comparisson to a pub serving drinks, you'll find that a 14yr old cannot consume alcohol on the premises, whether or not they have paid for it. A pub would be in trouble for allowing a 14yr old to drink alcohol on their premises, but someone looking after a child for free would not be :thumbsup:

[bunyip]

I agree, my pub analogy was some way off the mark.

I'm curious as to whether Ofsted understood the true picture when they registered that CM you mention. Did they not simply think she was doing it for free and for some pre-reg experience and was only going to start paid work once she was legitimately registered? Even if she made that clear, did they understand?

In terms of being a childminding business, surely she was trading as a childminder (ie. performing work for which she would receive reward) before she was registered, irrespective of when she submitted the bills?

:confused:

[twinkletoes5]

Sorry but no - you are not cleared


have you done your start up course? If not and you are not approved by end of this month you will have to start again once you have done the course.

Ok thanks everyone, will phone them tomorrow to find out exactly is going on, as when i last phoned they said i shouldn't book the course until i was registered. Hope this is right as i couldn't afford to start again with all the checks etc!!!

[Mouse]

I agree, my pub analogy was some way off the mark.

I'm curious as to whether Ofsted understood the true picture when they registered that CM you mention. Did they not simply think she was doing it for free and for some pre-reg experience and was only going to start paid work once she was legitimately registered? Even if she made that clear, did they understand?

In terms of being a childminding business, surely she was trading as a childminder (ie. performing work for which she would receive reward) before she was registered, irrespective of when she submitted the bills?

:confused:

Yes, they fully understood what the cm was doing. Do you honestly think they'd believe someone was offering free childcare out of the goodness of their heart? Even Ofsted aren't that daft!
Before registration she wasn't trading as a childminder as she wasn't registered. She was looking after children, without reward, which doesn't require registration.
Once she was registered she gave the parents a big bill for their first week, which they paid & she declared as income for that week (at which time she also became self-employed). At no time did she invoice them for the free weeks. It just happened that the first bill was charged at a very high rate.

Our previous DO also suggested this to people who were waiting for their regiatration to come through and had people waiting to start.

It may be a way round the rules, but it's not illegal.

[bunyip]

Yes, they fully understood what the cm was doing. Do you honestly think they'd believe someone was offering free childcare out of the goodness of their heart? Even Ofsted aren't that daft!
Before registration she wasn't trading as a childminder as she wasn't registered. She was looking after children, without reward, which doesn't require registration.
Once she was registered she gave the parents a big bill for their first week, which they paid & she declared as income for that week (at which time she also became self-employed). At no time did she invoice them for the free weeks. It just happened that the first bill was charged at a very high rate.

Our previous DO also suggested this to people who were waiting for their regiatration to come through and had people waiting to start.

It may be a way round the rules, but it's not illegal.

I don't know whether Ofsted believed the care was being provided out of the goodness of the heart, but Ofsted do sometimes take a "don't ask - don't tell" approach. They certainly do so when it comes to the need for planning permission. I don't know: maybe they assumed it was a reciprocal care arrangement. ????? They sometimes move in mysterious ways. :huh:

I do know that Ofsted can be very inconsistent, which I find deeply worrying.

I asked them about a very similar situation not long ago, on behalf of a pre-reg chap I was supporting, peer-to-peer. He had a mum who was desperate to start her lo on a certain date, but he couldn't be sure when his reg would come through (cos Ofsted are soooo reliable:rolleyes:). She was actually putting him under considerable emotional pressure, but he was worried about 'phoning Ofsted - he thought they'd assume he was already minding and would investigate further, slowing down his application even more. So I agreed to 'phone on his behalf. Ofsted said that care could be given strictly "for no payment or reward." I asked for detailed clarification. They said he could not bill her after he was registered for any care provided before he was registered. Furthermore, he couldn't even charge for his costs/expenses (food, materials, electricity, etc.) or accept any reward in kind. They even went so far as to say that he could not provide pre-reg care absolutely free, if the free care provision was part of a tacit agreement that the mum would sign a contract for paid care once registered, as the contract formed a 'reward' in law. (:eek: Gosh, I thought that last condition was a bit harsh, but there you go.)

I'm still very uncomfortable about what the CM you mention did.
She can't say that she was providing the pre-reg care for no reward, if that "free" care was in any way connected with the fact that the first week's bill included an extraordinary charge (and from what I read, it certainly did.) So if that's the case, then it wasn't free. OK, she was gambling that she would actually be registered, but that changes nothing. If the week 1 bills included an element that was only present because she's provided pre-reg care then that equates to a "payment or reward". By what I understand from the circumstances as described, it did not "just happen" that the first bill was charged at a very high rate. She deferred the reward, but it was still a reward. She was trading, she just wasn't registered.

Seems she got away with it, but that doesn't make it right - or even lawful. At the very least, it's disturbing that somone who applied for registration couldn't wait to find a way round the rules that are there to protect the children and our profession. To think that a DO might be encouraging that - well, frankly, I find that disgusting.

[Mouse]

Maybe things have changed since this cm did it. Who knows with Ofsted.

But it happened, the minder was registered within a couple of weeks and it all worked out well for everyone. I'm sure the cm in question would appreciate your concern for how she runs her business ;)

It's in the past, so don't stress yourself about it :D

[mama2three]

They even went so far as to say that he could not provide pre-reg care absolutely free, if the free care provision was part of a tacit agreement that the mum would sign a contract for paid care once registered, as the contract formed a 'reward' in law. ( Gosh, I thought that last condition was a bit harsh, but there you go.)

I was told this when I considered starting to care ready for the new school term , my reg didnt come through til late september. There was no fee , no 'expenses' -but legally my 'reward ' was that they would sign a contract with me for care at the end of the free period.

[bunyip]

Maybe things have changed since this cm did it. Who knows with Ofsted.

But it happened, the minder was registered within a couple of weeks and it all worked out well for everyone. I'm sure the cm in question would appreciate your concern for how she runs her business ;) I'm quite sure she wouldn't.

It's in the past, so don't stress yourself about it :D

I'm not stressed, but I am concerned when people look for deceptive ways to break rules that are there to protect. Btw, I'm not saying that of anyone on these boards, just the anonymous CM in the case you've described.

If CMs behave like that, with the support of their DO, then how can we object to all those unregistered providers who find a way round the rules?

I'm also concerned that Ofsted are giving out inconsistent information.

None of this helps CMs to become valued and respected.

[Mouse]

I'm not stressed, but I am concerned when people look for deceptive ways to break rules that are there to protect. Btw, I'm not saying that of anyone on these boards, just the anonymous CM in the case you've described.

If CMs behave like that, with the support of their DO, then how can we object to all those unregistered providers who find a way round the rules?

I'm also concerned that Ofsted are giving out inconsistent information. That's what they're best at! Haven't you learnt anything yet :laughing:

None of this helps CMs to become valued and respected.

If you read through my posts you'll see that I haven't expressed whether or not I agreed with what she did. I have stated what she did it & how she managed to do it. You seem to be questioning how & why, I am telling you how & why. I am not debating the ethics of it.

I don't really think she did much harm to the level of respect people have for cms. She was one person who had an agreement with one family. Over the years I have seen endless examples of behaviour that have done our reputation a lot more harm. I would rather back someone who did a few weeks of free care before being registered than a cm who persistently overminds & smokes in the car when she has children in with her...but that's a whole new thread :mad:

[Bear23]

If you read through my posts you'll see that I haven't expressed whether or not I agreed with what she did. I have stated what she did it & how she managed to do it. You seem to be questioning how & why, I am telling you how & why. I am not debating the ethics of it.

I don't really think she did much harm to the level of respect people have for cms. She was one person who had an agreement with one family. Over the years I have seen endless examples of behaviour that have done our reputation a lot more harm. I would rather back someone who did a few weeks of free care before being registered than a cm who persistently overminds & smokes in the car when she has children in with her...but that's a whole new thread :mad:

:thumbsup:

[jucatzzz]

Forgive me if im wrong but i think you have been mis-informed .the course is part of reg and leads up to being registered once you have finished and had all your certificates, am i wrong or right ? so who ever said you could start has made a mistake. you neeed to get on the phone before you loose your customer.

[bunyip]

If you read through my posts you'll see that I haven't expressed whether or not I agreed with what she did. I have stated what she did it & how she managed to do it. You seem to be questioning how & why, I am telling you how & why. I am not debating the ethics of it.

I don't really think she did much harm to the level of respect people have for cms. She was one person who had an agreement with one family. Over the years I have seen endless examples of behaviour that have done our reputation a lot more harm. I would rather back someone who did a few weeks of free care before being registered than a cm who persistently overminds & smokes in the car when she has children in with her...but that's a whole new thread :mad:

Reply sent by PM.

bunyip

[Mouse]

My tongue in cheek responses on this thread were no way intended to ridicule anyone and I apologise now if they have come across that way :)

I have requested that all my comments be deleted from this thread.

[mama2three]

Forgive me if im wrong but i think you have been mis-informed .the course is part of reg and leads up to being registered once you have finished and had all your certificates, am i wrong or right ? so who ever said you could start has made a mistake. you neeed to get on the phone before you loose your customer.

Sorry , this isnt quite right.
Up to september the 'old'eyfs allows for a course to be undertaken within 6 months of registration. Some counties however insist it is done first . Mine was cancelled twice prereg , i was already working when I finally did the course. The 2012eyfs insists it is done prereg.

[twinkletoes5]

Sorry , this isnt quite right.
Up to september the 'old'eyfs allows for a course to be undertaken within 6 months of registration. Some counties however insist it is done first . Mine was cancelled twice prereg , i was already working when I finally did the course. The 2012eyfs insists it is done prereg.

Hi, i phoned and got told that i had been given the wrong information but there is a course in a months time that i can do and have booked.
Moments after that phone call i got one to say that i have my inspection is less than 2 weeks time (panic attack)!!! Did tell her that i havn't done the course and she said that should be ok if i was confident enough with the policy's i have ready for her to see and that a lot of people don't even bother going on the course to save money!!!

In answer to my original question of "Can i look after children with out being registered" i've told the parents that i'm not going to do it till i'm registered as don't want to get into any trouble before i have even started!!
Thanks for all the replys x

[blue bear]

10 years ago my friend was registering and her friend was desperate for care. She called ofsted they said she could care for children as a friend for no payment but if she then took on parent as a contract things were not so clear cut as it would be looked on as if doing it for reward- the contract was the reward.
My friend cared for these two children for two years for no payment in the end so she would not get into trouble because she wanted to help her friend.