PDA

View Full Version : insurance?



yummyripples
22-12-2013, 11:39 PM
I have read a lot of Facebook posts about parents turning up earlier than contracted in the morning and later than contracted at night. The minders are wondering how to approach the parents and they are being advised to tell parents that they are not insured to have them on the premises out of contracted time.
Is this true or just made up? I can't find anything on my schedule that states times x

dawn100
23-12-2013, 12:00 AM
I don't see how this can be true as otherwise alot of childminders must be working uninsured alot of the time when you do agreed additional hours than the contract also I did have a contract for minimum hours without set times, I use mm contracts and they have space for minimum hours without times also when you have ad hoc contracts. I have never completed any forms which state my working hours for my insurance company. I don't have set working hours, just work what suits me and current parents but changes frequently.
I think this is just an excuse to get parents not to turn up early and yes I get extremly frustrated with parents who continually turn up early but think we have to becareful about makes excuses which are not true.
Apologies if this does vary from insurance company but I have only ever used mm.

shortstuff
23-12-2013, 06:38 AM
I think you will find it is just a line used to help cms say no without feeling so guilty. Its also harder for parents to argue the case.

Simona
23-12-2013, 08:42 AM
I have read a lot of Facebook posts about parents turning up earlier than contracted in the morning and later than contracted at night. The minders are wondering how to approach the parents and they are being advised to tell parents that they are not insured to have them on the premises out of contracted time.
Is this true or just made up? I can't find anything on my schedule that states times x

Has anyone EVER read on our insurance certificate anything about the restrictions in the hours that we can operate?...NO

an insurance is valid for all types of hours of care including 'overnight' as long as the company is aware and 'continuosly' for 12 months of the year ...those Cms should reflect on their practice and find a way to approach the parents and stop the 'early/late' practice accordingly

Those parents who turn up early or late need 2 things: a contract review and a clear message that care out of contracted hours is to be charged....however....many parents often do turn up late for genuine reasons such as a delay in their journey home...if early/late appears to be consistent then a review of hours would address this....nothing to do with our insurance!!

bunyip
23-12-2013, 09:42 AM
It's not just on FB: I've seen the same advice given on the forum.

It saddens me. Why are people so scared of the truth or of politely asserting their reasonable requests that they have to hide behind the lie (ie. "I wish I could help, but I can't because of my insurance.") I find it all a bit pathetic.

We are grown-ups who are engaged in a business which requires a relationship of mutual trust with our client parents. IMHO no CM should stoop to lying because they lack the bottle/maturity/social skills to say a straight "no" and deal with such disagreements in a mature and businesslike fashion.

I know this is an unpopular point of view, but I call a spade a spade.

Simona
26-12-2013, 09:35 AM
It's not just on FB: I've seen the same advice given on the forum.

It saddens me. Why are people so scared of the truth or of politely asserting their reasonable requests that they have to hide behind the lie (ie. "I wish I could help, but I can't because of my insurance.") I find it all a bit pathetic.

We are grown-ups who are engaged in a business which requires a relationship of mutual trust with our client parents. IMHO no CM should stoop to lying because they lack the bottle/maturity/social skills to say a straight "no" and deal with such disagreements in a mature and businesslike fashion.

I know this is an unpopular point of view, but I call a spade a spade.

I wonder if these cms are scared of the truth or just lack the skills to run their own business effectively? ...being aware of what our insurance covers us for I would consider the first thing to have very clear in our minds??

I am not surprised that Truss keeps repeating that some cms require support in running their businesses.... from those comments or advice given it may prove to be true!

sarah707
26-12-2013, 10:21 AM
It's true in that if you go over your numbers because a family does not collect on time putting you at more than 6 under 8 ... or if you (used to have) more than 3 under 5 without a variation ... then in those sorts of situations you would not be insured...

It is definitely a line of lot of childminders are advised to use by their Local Authority bods - either 'insurance won't cover it' or 'Ofsted won't be happy'...

a lot of cms do not feel comfortable being truthful and it's much easier to blame someone else isn't it?

:D

Simona
26-12-2013, 10:49 AM
It's true in that if you go over your numbers because a family does not collect on time putting you at more than 6 under 8 ... or if you (used to have) more than 3 under 5 without a variation ... then in those sorts of situations you would not be insured...

It is definitely a line of lot of childminders are advised to use by their Local Authority bods - either 'insurance won't cover it' or 'Ofsted won't be happy'...

a lot of cms do not feel comfortable being truthful and it's much easier to blame someone else isn't it?

:D

Unless I read it wrong you are referring to an 'overlap' where a child comes in and the one leaving is still in our setting due to a delay in pick up?
Due to our ever extending 'flexibility' and the rules of funding these situations will become more widespread.
I remember very clearly Truss mentioning she would simplify the 'overlap' scenarios....in these situation it would be advisable for a cm to contact her association/insurer and ask whether she would be covered.
Unless I am wrong most insurances cover us for 12 children?

More Great/Affordable Childcare contains sweeping reforms.
It is indeed our duty to be updated but so it is the duty of the insurer to keep updating their documents and not leave cms 'uncovered'!

The way to do so is to report this to our representing associations and ensure they pass the message on to the insuring company...in all cases apart from Morton Michel, this is Royal Sun Alliance (RSA)

sarah707
26-12-2013, 05:58 PM
While there is flexibility in the Eyfs there is still a certain amount of rules - for example, if I was looking after 6 under 8 and there was a hiccup of timing between one child arriving and a new one leaving - I could not then go to 7 under 8 without working illegally.

Similarly, up until the revised eyfs I would not have been able to be flexible at all with my under 5s without permission from Ofsted - another scenario where childminders would have said 'I am not insured' ...

I think it's simply a statement that makes cms feel better than saying 'I don't want to do it' because to say that might lead to parents thinking they were being deliberately unhelpful - when in truth we should be given a more respect.

xx

Simona
27-12-2013, 09:17 AM
While there is flexibility in the Eyfs there is still a certain amount of rules - for example, if I was looking after 6 under 8 and there was a hiccup of timing between one child arriving and a new one leaving - I could not then go to 7 under 8 without working illegally.

Similarly, up until the revised eyfs I would not have been able to be flexible at all with my under 5s without permission from Ofsted - another scenario where childminders would have said 'I am not insured' ...

I think it's simply a statement that makes cms feel better than saying 'I don't want to do it' because to say that might lead to parents thinking they were being deliberately unhelpful - when in truth we should be given a more respect.

xx

Thank you for your reply Sarah

'overlaps' are most likely to happen between midday and 3 pm between those children coming for the 3 hrs of free education and those taking a session...I would say that is fair to assume

A cm having 7 children in her care would mean she has 'self variated' to have 6 children and then an overlap happens during the day and...yes...indeed ...she is well over her numbers and therefore breaching EYFS...unintentionally of course.

We are not really referring to the EYFS 2008 but the 2012 version which is a bit more difficult to act upon at times due to its very open interpretation.
as mentioned, Truss did say that overlaps need to be clarified....not sure if she has? but it is surely something cms need to look into as it will happen more and more frequently in future we need to make sure our insurance covers this....it may also be worth mentioning to our LAs, those left to support us?

I am not in agreement that to make themselves 'feel better' cms should state what is actually wrong...would it not be better to say to parent that they would check first with their insurance and come back to them on the matter? that would gain respect from the parents in my view.

bunyip
27-12-2013, 09:53 AM
While there is flexibility in the Eyfs there is still a certain amount of rules - for example, if I was looking after 6 under 8 and there was a hiccup of timing between one child arriving and a new one leaving - I could not then go to 7 under 8 without working illegally.

Similarly, up until the revised eyfs I would not have been able to be flexible at all with my under 5s without permission from Ofsted - another scenario where childminders would have said 'I am not insured' ...

I think it's simply a statement that makes cms feel better than saying 'I don't want to do it' because to say that might lead to parents thinking they were being deliberately unhelpful - when in truth we should be given a more respect.

xx

Yes, I see what you mean Sarah.

PLI cover largely depends on us following the statutory rules and regulations. So, historically speaking, a pre-September 2012, a CM might in some way be justified in saying "sorry, but I won't be insured" if they were turning away a child who'd require a variation. Mind you, it might be more honest for a CM at that point in time to have said, "I really don't want that many lo's around at the same time" or, "I really can't be ar5ed to apply for a variation" if that was the actually the truth.

The point is this excuse of "being uninsured" seems to have been adopted as the standard industry BS for being dishonest with parents. It rather puts me in mind of the archetypal motor mechanic sucking his breath through his teeth, slowly shaking his head and saying, "tricky - you just can't get the parts -it's gonna cost" as the usual fiddle/excuse for overcharging on a simply car repair job.

Really it just indicates a lack of honesty, trust and respect between some CMs and their parent/clients. Dare I introduce that much-abused word "professionalism" at this point in the debate? Never mind the inconvenient truth that lies have a way of being discovered, and we're supposed to be the ultimate role model for our mindees. :huh: Not only that, but it's symptomatic of a lack of self-respect too. If a CM makes a perfectly sensible decision not to provide care for a particular child on a particular day, they shouldn't have to feel bad about that choice or feel the need to lie or pass the blame onto some faceless insurance company or bureaucrat.

Tbh, if I were a parent on the receiving end of a "sorry, but I'm not insured" excuse, I'd ask for it in writing. I'd then get hold of a copy of the insurance schedule (easy) and send it to Ofsted together with the CM's written excuse and a formal complaint that my CM was being deliberately untruthful and thereby failing to work in partnership with me. I only mention this cos it shows how stoopid it is to dig a big hole for oneself over a casual lie, instead of growing up and having the self-respect and maturity to stand by a perfectly reasonable decision.

Simona
27-12-2013, 10:10 AM
Yes, I see what you mean Sarah.

PLI cover largely depends on us following the statutory rules and regulations. So, historically speaking, a pre-September 2012, a CM might in some way be justified in saying "sorry, but I won't be insured" if they were turning away a child who'd require a variation. Mind you, it might be more honest for a CM at that point in time to have said, "I really don't want that many lo's around at the same time" or, "I really can't be ar5ed to apply for a variation" if that was the actually the truth.

The point is this excuse of "being uninsured" seems to have been adopted as the standard industry BS for being dishonest with parents. It rather puts me in mind of the archetypal motor mechanic sucking his breath through his teeth, slowly shaking his head and saying, "tricky - you just can't get the parts -it's gonna cost" as the usual fiddle/excuse for overcharging on a simply car repair job.

Really it just indicates a lack of honesty, trust and respect between some CMs and their parent/clients. Dare I introduce that much-abused word "professionalism" at this point in the debate? Never mind the inconvenient truth that lies have a way of being discovered, and we're supposed to be the ultimate role model for our mindees. :huh: Not only that, but it's symptomatic of a lack of self-respect too. If a CM makes a perfectly sensible decision not to provide care for a particular child on a particular day, they shouldn't have to feel bad about that choice or feel the need to lie or pass the blame onto some faceless insurance company or bureaucrat.

Tbh, if I were a parent on the receiving end of a "sorry, but I'm not insured" excuse, I'd ask for it in writing. I'd then get hold of a copy of the insurance schedule (easy) and send it to Ofsted together with the CM's written excuse and a formal complaint that my CM was being deliberately untruthful and thereby failing to work in partnership with me. I only mention this cos it shows how stoopid it is to dig a big hole for oneself over a casual lie, instead of growing up and having the self-respect and maturity to stand by a perfectly reasonable decision.

Bunyip...that just reinforces what I have said in the previous comment...it is not just cms who need to be updated but also those who insure us.
We cannot stand still and think our insurance covers us pre 2012 and do nothing about it? maybe cms should also read the 'small print' before signing on the dotted line?

It is the company's duty to update anything they sell us to reflect the changes that are taking place...equally I would expect Ofsted to be updated on our insurance too as well as the matter of 'overlap'

I have recently had the opportunity to clarify a point with my insurance because increasingly cms in my area are being asked to look after children in other places: church halls and even their own home.

These requests come from my LA and I pointed out to them that cms are 'home based'....rather than say 'I am not insured' I said I would check and I took action by contacting my association who in turn checked with the insurance company.
I received a satisfactory reply which I posted here in this forum.

My message is when unsure check with the relevant people then give parents a proper answer.

dawn100
27-12-2013, 11:05 AM
The OP was about people turning up early in the morning and arriving late at night so wouldn't be causing overlaps like it might if it was in the middle of the day. So I think in lots of cases it's not a missunderstanding of what their insurance covers them but an excuse. I do understand why cm use excuses, a few months back I had a 15mth and 11mth both 4 full days a week and had another enquiry for a 13mth old for the same four days, I thought about it but thought in all honesty it would be pushing it too far, I have steps to my house and couldn't see how I could get all three out if the house and into the pushchair at the same time without leaving any unattended in the pram on the path and also thought my back wouldn't cope so I said to the parent whilst I have a space I wouldn't be able to take on another non walker. The parent got quite funny with me and accused me of being unprofessional and I shouldn't be a cm if I couldn't cope with 3 babies. I have also turned away after school enquiries and got told well it won't take you over your numbers, and no it wouldn't but I have had other reasons like not enough seats in my car - to which one parent replied i should buy a bigger car just to accommodate their child 1 day a week, sometimes parents have very little respect for the decisions we make so that is why I think some make the excuse of I won't be insured. I doubt parents try telling nurseries how to run their buisness but some seem to think they can dictate to us how we should run our business or have little respect for how we run it. As hard as it might be to say it as it is and the reason you are saying no is becuase that's what you want to say not hide behind insurance excuses I think that is what we have to do - be honest. If we are not honest to parents how can we expect honesty from parents.

bunyip
27-12-2013, 11:50 AM
I agree absolutely, Dawn.

You're also right that some parents can put unfair pressure on CMs and it's up to us to resist this politely and honestly.

It's also worth bearing in mind that some parents will apply pressure or moral blackmail to try to get a CM to take on their child, then try to dictate about how the CM runs their business. About a year ago, I had a prospective client who wanted me to take on her 2 lo's. Both were EY age, and I had only one space. She tried 'leaning' on me and even suggested I stagger the start dates so I could persuade Ofsted that it was a valid "continuity of care". I was amazed at the lengths she'd gone to in researching this, but she'd spoked to another CM at a toddler group and heard of this 'loophole.' I told her I wasn't prepared to have 4 EY children here, irrespective of "continuity of care" - there were practical problems (such as transporting 4 lo's who can't walk far) and I prefer to have more 1-to-1 care. I did offer to take the children if space became available or when the elder started school, but mum was dissatisfied and made various unpleasant remarks.

I later discovered she'd persuaded a CM in the next town (who also had only 1 EY space on Tuesdays at the time) to do the 'Continuity of Care Shuffle' to accommodate her. Tbf this only gave her 4 EY children on Tuesdays TTO, thus enabling her to have these 2 children full time, so I could see why she did it from a £business point of view. But it did rather tie her to the house that day and I've no idea what the other parent/clients really thought.

The shocking thing (and this is the point of this rambling story) is the mum-of-two's reaction to later events. Hers were the only 2 lo's attending on Fridays until the CM took on another child (Fridays only.) The mum immediately complained this meant her children "would not be getting sufficient attention and 1-to-1 care": despite the fact that she'd leaned on the CM to let her children in and push her numbers up to 4 every Tuesday. :panic:

Tazmin68
27-12-2013, 03:37 PM
I'm not sure where Simona gets 12 children covered on insurance. On my building and contents insurance which covers me for childminding I am limited to 6 mindees plus my own two children at any one time this is irrespective of ages of the children attending. So really we have two area to look at with regards to numbers. The numbers of children that we can care for through our individual registration plus our own insurance.

Deb

vickylou
27-12-2013, 04:02 PM
I am with morton michel now and I think we can have 10 children ( may be wrong as I dont have that many so have never needed to be definite) but when I was with NCMA it was definitely 12, my bank recently offered me a price match on my building & contents and said it would also cover me for childminding, max they covered was 6 and equipment wasnt covered either mine or minded childrens! No price match there!!

Simona
27-12-2013, 05:50 PM
Dawn 100...you are right ...the original post was about parents turning up early or late and that, I feel, can clearly be covered by insurance plus a good contract review and charging for non contracted hours as overtime.

The comments have gone beyond that highlighting many problems we face and how we respond to parents' demands.
It is our professional judgement that leads us to say yes or no to a request as you have very well described...whether parents like it or not that is surely up to them but no reason to make 'insurance' the reason for not being honest as you say.

Tamzin68...I was not referring to the household insurance but our Public Liability which covers us for 6 under 8 but also for the over 8 up to a maximum of 12...pacey have that as well as MMichel when I enquired recently about their insurance...if it has changed since last August I am not aware...so anyone can update if they have been told otherwise