WARNING PACEY CONTRACTS - all contracts must be changed per year ......

[VeggieSausage]

Just phoned PACEY to renew my membership and public liability insurance and asked about using the old NCMA contracts and if I was able to still use them.

I was told yes I could use them but ALL including PACEY contracts should be changed yearly, this was advise by their legal team as the clauses and small print may have changed and would not stand up in court. So this would mean for me as we can only use PACEY contracts buying at least 2 books of PACEY contracts per year on top of our membership cost - an extra £20. I can't help feeling sometimes that PACEY are just money making and not really there for their members. I am going to look at Morton Michel instead and consider not renewing my membership. I asked about contract reviews and said so when we have contract reviews and there are no changes we still have to change the contract anyway - makes a mockery of the system and she replied yes you do and the contract review is just about your setting not the legal side of the actual contract - HUMPH!

[hectors house]

I am still using up my old supply of NCMA contracts although I have been for Morton Michel for over a year now - I don't review the contract every year if nothing has changed and my mindees tend to come as babies and leave for school, so I don't get through many contracts - Morton Michel will still legally support me regardless of whose contracts I am using - surely the wording (small print or not) on the contract is legally binding and the solicitors will act on the wording on that rather than the current small print?

[Mrsh3103]

So how come they have spaces for parents to sign after a contract review? It also just says- please note: this contract remains in force until a new contract is agreed it until termination with notice is satisfactorily completed.

Surely they should be telling us when we join them if we have to do the opposite of what the contract says???

[VeggieSausage]

Yes I said this to her and she said that their legal team advise a complete new bought paperwork contract in case the small print has changed. I am moving to Morton Michel, canuse any contracts and no joining fee £45 for insurance.....cheaper than joining and insurance with PACEY......

[bunyip]

This came up a few months ago when NCMA/pacey changed their stationery. A couple of members checked and IIRC pacey said they'd support older contracts and, whilst they recommended regular reviews, they wouldn't insist on them.

I'd be a bit concerned if pacey were making additional demands on CMs in the field of contracts. It has always struck me as odd that our "professional" representative body seem to struggle so much with things which MM seem to just take in their stride. And nobody at pacey can tell me why that is so.

Of greater concern is that when I put an insurance question to pacey, either nobody can answer it or I get conflicting answers from different staff: like the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.

IME, pacey's 'customer support' with regard to insurance is a total mess. I made an enquiry about whether the pacey policy covered equipment hired/borrowed from toy libraries and resource centres. Nobody at Bromley knew (big help, eh?) They gave me a phone number and sent me away to ask the insurance company, but the number given left me speaking to a medical advice line instead!

Personally, I'm only a member of pacey cos I think we should have a representative organisation and support it. But we're getting a declining level of effective support from them IMHO which means I'm thinking about how long I can justify remaining a member. I'm tempted to renew my pacey membership this year, but move my insurance to MM who at least don't suffer from pacey's "couldn't care less" attitude about its clients. That is currently the most expensive option - but if pacey want me to spend a small fortune on new contract stationery every year, then it's an option that suddenly begins to make economic sense.

[EmmaReed84]

Hmmm? I think this is more of a money making piece of advice as opposed to legal advice.

One you have signed a contract you are bound by the term and conditions of THAT contract, not the terms and conditions of future versions. Also, if there were going to be changes then they would need to made in writing with notice.

For example, I had worked for T-Mobile for over 7 years, during that time we have had about 4 contract versions. So if a customer signed a contract in 2005 contract version 52, they would be bound by those terms and conditions, not the terms of contract version 56 in 2011. Unless a letter was sent out advising them of a change to terms and conditions.

Just because PACEY change the terms and create new versions, it means that NEW clients, signing the NEW versions would be bound by them, but the existing clients would be bound by the original terms.

If it was the case that you were supposed to create an entire new contract annually, why on earth would they give you the space to sign for a contract review?

[Mouse]

Wouldnt it make more sense for them to contact members if they change the small print on contracts rather than expect them to replace them every year, just in case?

I have another couple of weeks before renewal to consider my options.

[Simona]

I cannot believe that we are getting such varying information...I am the same trying to find a new m'ship and insurance package

To me a contract review is an update of requirements such as hours or fees ...if nothing has changed why redo a whole contract? all that is required is a signature confirming all still applies?

We were told by pacey a few months back we could continue using ncma contracts now it has changed?
I am glad I have abandoned Pacey contracts after just a few months and reverting to my own...both MM and PLA accept your own contract and they can be miles in front with info...any update can be done in a few minutes without endless reviews

Good to share our experiences on this.

[bunyip]

Just had another thought about this one.

If pacey are saying their contracts "won't stand up in court", then they should explain why. Exactly which piece of contract law has changed which makes them invalid?

Additionally, if they are referring to contracts written on currently-available stationery, then they are admitting their own contract stationery is in some way flawed. AT the very least, their stationery should carry some kind of "use-by" date. Therefore, they are not fit for the purpose for which they were sold. This represents a straightforward breach of the Sale of Goods Act, so they should be issuing a full refund to everyone who purchased the stationery. Simples.

Comments from pacey please?

[Simona]

Just had another thought about this one.

If pacey are saying their contracts "won't stand up in court", then they should explain why. Exactly which piece of contract law has changed which makes them invalid?

Additionally, if they are referring to contracts written on currently-available stationery, then they are admitting their own contract stationery is in some way flawed. AT the very least, their stationery should carry some kind of "use-by" date. Therefore, they are not fit for the purpose for which they were sold. This represents a straightforward breach of the Sale of Goods Act, so they should be issuing a full refund to everyone who purchased the stationery. Simples.

Comments from pacey please?

Thank you Bunyip for putting it so well...USE BY...good idea! with the current ever changing reforms we would be buying contracts every month

Apart from the reason given I also became worried that using ncma contracts when they had 'rebranded' may not be a good thing... never mind putting a sticker on them which I thought would diminish the seriousness of the contract!!
I was repeatedly told yes they are valid, we'll send you stickers but buy new ones anyway...ahh!!

Comments from pacey...they may be as hard to get as your LA with whom you had various problems connecting and getting answers!

[FussyElmo]

So if pacey change the small print it makes the contract invalid.

So if I was to buy contracts on the 31st August 2012 and they change then 2nd September 2012. Fast forward to the July 2013 I have a problem would my contract be invalid because the small print had changed

Its always been considered good practise to review contracts every 12 months up to the cm if she/he wants to or not

[Tealady]

Just had another thought about this one.

If pacey are saying their contracts "won't stand up in court", then they should explain why. Exactly which piece of contract law has changed which makes them invalid?

Additionally, if they are referring to contracts written on currently-available stationery, then they are admitting their own contract stationery is in some way flawed. AT the very least, their stationery should carry some kind of "use-by" date. Therefore, they are not fit for the purpose for which they were sold. This represents a straightforward breach of the Sale of Goods Act, so they should be issuing a full refund to everyone who purchased the stationery. Simples.

Comments from pacey please?

My thoughts exactly.... you beat me to it!

[christine e]

pacey or the former ncma have always recommended that you update your contracts every year - there are many old post on here about it - you do not have to update your contracts every year - I will just have a scout round and try and find one of the old posts

[christine e]

http://www.childmindinghelp.co.uk/fo...ion-pacey.html

[wellybelly]

It seems a money making thing to me

[bunyip]

So if pacey change the small print it makes the contract invalid.

So if I was to buy contracts on the 31st August 2012 and they change then 2nd September 2012. Fast forward to the July 2013 I have a problem would my contract be invalid because the small print had changed

Its always been considered good practise to review contracts every 12 months up to the cm if she/he wants to or not

If only it were that simple.

If our contracts became invalid as soon as pacey changed the small print, that would at least make sense. What they appear to be saying is quite different. That is, our contracts become invalid 12 months after being signed, even if pacey have not changed the small print. If they do change the small print, then they are still valid anyway - but only until a year after being signed.

It's totally bizarre !!!

Being strictly accurate, the contracts are valid anyway (if properly filled in, etc.) What pacey seem to be saying is that they reserve the right to withhold the legal and debt recovery support we pay for (as part of our PLI package) unless we do a whole new contract every 12 months. I guess they're entitled to do so, but they're not at all clear about it when we join/renew. We can all draw our own conclusions about whether that is merely evidence of a lack of competence or downright dishonest of them. The fact is that it's yet another area in which pacey's service to their clients/members is in decline. They are saying the service provided by their legal team is inferior to MM's and their insurance product (whilst cheaper) is not as good as MM's.

[FussyElmo]

If only it were that simple.

If our contracts became invalid as soon as pacey changed the small print, that would at least make sense. What they appear to be saying is quite different. That is, our contracts become invalid 12 months after being signed, even if pacey have not changed the small print. If they do change the small print, then they are still valid anyway - but only until a year after being signed.

It's totally bizarre !!!

Being strictly accurate, the contracts are valid anyway (if properly filled in, etc.) What pacey seem to be saying is that they reserve the right to withhold the legal and debt recovery support we pay for (as part of our PLI package) unless we do a whole new contract every 12 months. I guess they're entitled to do so, but they're not at all clear about it when we join/renew. We can all draw our own conclusions about whether that is merely evidence of a lack of competence or downright dishonest of them. The fact is that it's yet another area in which pacey's service to their clients/members is in decline. They are saying the service provided by their legal team is inferior to MM's and their insurance product (whilst cheaper) is not as good as MM's.

I try so hard not to complain about pacey because I do believe we need a representative body but sometimes they make it really hard.

How can the contacts become invalid because they have changed their small print when MM will still represent you if you don't even use their contracts.

Surely a contract is valid until its terminated or one party have broken the terms of it

[bunyip]

http://www.childmindinghelp.co.uk/fo...ion-pacey.html

Thanks for the link, Christine. that's the earlier thread I was thinking of (in my post #5).

That was the statement from pacey when they rebranded the stationery (or at least one of the statements.) But can we be sure that still holds true? It is opposite to what VeggieSausage seems to have been told in post #! of this thread.

So the question now is: have pacey moved the goalposts again, or is it just more evidence that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing?

Whatever the answer is, I think it's a shoddy way of "representing members' interests" when a CM could stand to lose £1000's of unpaid fees as a result.

[SYLVIA]

If pacey change the small print then firstly I think they need to be advising each member immediately and secondly wouldn't changes to wording make the contract invalid immediately, not after 12 months. I will consider jumping ship to MM if this is really the case as I don't need to be thinking about that as well as everything else!

[Chatterbox Childcare]

Why is it that one person gets an answer it is seen as the truth and no one else challenges it? All of a sudden this is fact and uproar!

Last time this was brought up I went to the Director of Membership and posted her response and everyone was happy.

IF you believe that the helpline was correct then so be it but IF you are a member and you are unhappy with this RING them, EMAIL them and let them know what you have been told and why you are unhappy.

Posting it on here doesn't get you anywhere but mad at a system.

I have, yesterday infact, emailed Pacey myself with a copy of the original post and asked for their response. Why don't you do that too????

Be active - the more people that challenge something the better in my opinion.