How long is a contract valid for?

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I have just spoken to the PACEY helpline and they say that it is good practice to review/rewrite your contract annually.

However, if you do this and don't make any changes the contract is still valid until notice is given or another one supercedes it.

Therefore your NCMA contracts are still valid after a year and you do not need to rewrite them on PACEY ones just for the sake of it.

If you wish to clarify this yourself please call PACEY ON 0845 8000 443 and press 3

[Ripeberry]

Thanks for the info. Only just purchased some new NCMA contracts. Not binning them for the sake of a change of name!

[hectors house]

On the old NCMA ones I have it gives a space for a review date - I normally write this as 12 months and just review the contract with the parent, we both sign and date and carry on unless significant changes of hours, days, hourly rate (although sometimes I just amend these and get parents to initial and give them a photocopy). But as you say a contract is still legal and binding until one party (minder or parent) ends it. I do everything I can to avoid writing out a whole new one due to cost and time involved.

[The Juggler]

you don't need to rewrite them unless there are changes.

A review of them is good but the continue unless it is a fixed term contract with an end date OR someone gives notice

[Simona]

I contacted Pacey legal dept on Monday
The present NCMA contracts are valid for 1 year from their rebranding date...as they rebranded in March 12 next year you need to have the Pacey ones in place

At one stage they used to advise we review them every 6 months...not sure about you but my parents do not wish that unless of course the agreement is changed in terms of days and hours...so for me yearly is very appropriate.

[bunyip]

I suspect there is a subtle difference between "valid" in the sense that the contract is legally enforceable, and "valid" in the sense that PACEY will provide legal support in a payments dispute.

I believe Magna Carta is still legally valid, even though it wasn't written on current HMSO stationery.

[Simona]

Sorry bunyip....a bit unsure about your reply??
Maybe the term valid here applies because the company has rebranded and after a while their previous name is not 'valid' anymore on any paperwork?..rather than the contract not being enforceable
A case that comes to mind is a very famous insurance company that rebranded years ago but still called by the old name ?

I am no expert but that is how I understood it from the legal dept...I am not up to speed at present maybe as agencies and MGC seem to have taken over my brain!!!

[lisbet]

Thank for the info

[bunyip]

Sorry bunyip....a bit unsure about your reply??
Maybe the term valid here applies because the company has rebranded and after a while their previous name is not 'valid' anymore on any paperwork?..rather than the contract not being enforceable
A case that comes to mind is a very famous insurance company that rebranded years ago but still called by the old name ?

I am no expert but that is how I understood it from the legal dept...I am not up to speed at present maybe as agencies and MGC seem to have taken over my brain!!!

Hi Simona. I'm not legally trained, so I'm only surmising. If it's critical, check with a lawyer. But:.............

I would expect a contract to be legally valid (i.e. legally enforceable) so long as it is correctly drawn up, signed, and all the terms are accepted as 'reasonable'. I doubt if it would matter one jot to a private solicitor or court, if it ever came to that, whether the logo at the top belongs to NCMA, PACEY, WHSmiths, or The Mickey Mouse Club. The important thing is that the contract represents a legally-binding agreement between service provider and client.

I think the point PACEY are making is that there's a condition of a member's insurance/legal protection agreement that we use NCMA/PACEY contracts in order to access legal support over any future contract dispute (and I'm not sure whether this applies to all contractual disputes or only the recovery of unpaid fees.) I understand this is more to do with what goes into their contracts, rather than just the matter of the logo. That is, PACEY legal believe they'd find it difficult to enforce a CM's home-made contracts which might miss out some important Ts&Cs. That's very sensible, but has nothing at all to do with re-branding and fancy logos.

But that's not to say the contract would be invalid even if it wasn't on in-house stationery. A private solicitor might well be able to achieve what PACEY legal team would refuse to try. In fact, MM's approach to non-standard contract stationery proves this point.

Since contracts work both ways, it's actually quite dangerous of PACEY to say contracts on NCMA forms will become invalid. That suggests that, after a year, and if I don't renew my current contracts, I could walk away from my responsibilities to parents without giving any notice. If I tried that, I suspect I would be sued, and I think I'd almost certainly lose and rightly so.

I can see the sense in PACEY saying all contracts should be re-drawn and signed annually, but I don't believe any contract lapses into invalidity after a year, no matter whose logo it bears. For example, for several years I worked for a bookshop chain. It was re-branded once, and then bought out and renamed by another company. But my contract of employment remained the same from the day I joined to the day I left.

Actually, it would be interesting to see if PACEY's insistence on new contracts is, in itself, strictly 'legal'. As a service-provider they can't simply leave behind any of their responsibilities to service-users (i.e. members) just by re-branding, cos PACEY carry all the liabilities, duties and responsibilities over from NCMA. And the new PACEY contracts are not substantially different from the NCMA stationery anyway.

[Kiddleywinks]

Changing to a different insurer doesn't make the contracts invalid so totally agree with Bunyip here, just because a company has rebranded shouldn't mean that current contracts are invalid.

[bunyip]

Changing to a different insurer doesn't make the contracts invalid so totally agree with Bunyip here, just because a company has rebranded shouldn't mean that current contracts are invalid.

Which is a shame if you happen to be running Cyprus at the moment - cos the answer would then be just to rename all the banks.

[The Juggler]

Changing to a different insurer doesn't make the contracts invalid so totally agree with Bunyip here, just because a company has rebranded shouldn't mean that current contracts are invalid.

i agree - totally a money making condition - they want you to purchase new contracts from them

[bunyip]

The other worrying thing is the subtle but crucial contradictions in PACEY's answers to enquiries.

Post #1: "I have just spoken to the PACEY helpline and they say that it is good practice to review/rewrite your contract annually."

Post #5: "The present NCMA contracts are valid for 1 year from their rebranding date...as they rebranded in March 12 next year you need to have the Pacey ones in place"

There is a world of difference between "good practice" and "need to".

This whole re-branding thing seems to have brought on a nasty case of "rectal - olecranon ambiguation."

[christine e]

Please take a look here

Members' Area

you will need to log in as a member to access the Q & A but have copied and pasted the question and answer re contracts

Q: Will my contracts be valid?

A: Yes, your contracts will be valid. However, we would recommend that you update your contracts annually to ensure that the information contained within is accurate and up-to-date.

[Simona]

Good points ...all of them
The woman in the legal dept I spoke to on Monday seemed to say the 'brand name matters'...she actually said 'by December we should have the new Pacey ones in place' but added the NCMA logo ones will be valid for a year since rebranding...she was actually extremely nice

I do understand about the validity and the rest of it...it was just a question of clarifying if after March 2013 any contracts with 'NCMA not Pacey' would still be valid...I will mention it at the Regional Forum in April
Frankly this is the worst time for NCMA to rebrand, I think we've got enough on our plate and by the looks of it 4 associations to choose from !

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I have rung again and had have the following information:

Pacey helpline : it is good practice to update your contracts each year, not just with parents but your stocks too. The reasons for this are that all PACEY stationary is reviewed 6 monthly and changed to reflect any changes - legislation etc.. this does not mean that you need to change your contracts with parents 6 monthly or annually.

ALL contracts are valid, regardless of whether they are NCMA/PACEY until notice is given by either party to cease trading with each other. The word valid is bantered about and I feel taken out of context depending on who is speaking to who.

Legal department : just spoke to Sharon and she states categorically that the contracts, regardless of NCMA/PAcey are legal and enforceable/valid until notice is given. She also states that on page 4 under the review date it states this in the contract in black and white.

ALL NCMA contracts are valid regardless of whether they are reviewed or not.

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I contacted Pacey legal dept on Monday
The present NCMA contracts are valid for 1 year from their rebranding date...as they rebranded in March 12 next year you need to have the Pacey ones in place

At one stage they used to advise we review them every 6 months...not sure about you but my parents do not wish that unless of course the agreement is changed in terms of days and hours...so for me yearly is very appropriate.

this validity is because they are reviewed after that date, not because they are not legal.

[Simona]

I really think we are getting our wires crossed here and getting very confused between what the helpline say and what the people in the legal dept are advising
The helpline did not have a clue and passed me to the legal dept...who is right? I posted exactly what I was told

Maybe Pacey should issue an official announcement to inform cms and clear any misunderstanding as we are not clearly agreeing here and looks like we have all spoken to different people?
as the Regional forums are the place and time when the rebranding is official my questions will be directed at them..at present I really do not care whether the contract says NCMA or Pacey

As to the frequency or reviews..that surely is between the cms and parents and up to our professional judgement?...why review if nothing has changed in terms of hours and fees unless of course regulation/legislation dictates it?
How many contracts in other professions are reviewed every 6 months?
This all adds to paperwork...paperwork and more paperwork which may not be really necessary...my view entirely of course!!!

[bunyip]

Please take a look here

Members' Area

you will need to log in as a member to access the Q & A but have copied and pasted the question and answer re contracts

Q: Will my contracts be valid?

A: Yes, your contracts will be valid. However, we would recommend that you update your contracts annually to ensure that the information contained within is accurate and up-to-date.

Thanks Christine. I think that's pretty clear now. The Q&A's are, on the whole, very helpful now we've found them.

I did have to laugh about PACEY allowing us to continue wearing NCMA badges. I'm so glad I don't have to freeze to death in the snow without my NCMA gilet. I'm equally pleased not to have to unpick the NCMA logo and re-embroider it with the new PACEY one that looks like it was crayoned by a child with no concept of the use of capital letters (how very "professional", eh? )

Don't you think it would help if the different departments improved their internal communication? I'm not expecting everyone to be an expert on everything, but it seems clear that the 'helpline' is giving out a different message to what to the legal team are saying, resulting in potentially dangerous confusions.

Simona - I agree with you 100% about the bad timing of the re-brand. I'd go further and say it's a totally misguided and costly exercise in vanity. Perhaps they should've limited it to just re-branding the 'helpline' - perhaps by removing the word "help" from the title?

[Simona]

Thank you bunyip...I feel many, or in fact the overwhelmimg majority, did not want the widening of the membeship and subsequesnt rebranding but...who are we 'the members' to voice our opposition to them?

Internal communications...you are spot on!
Pacey helpline...it takes 5 mins to spell out Pacey, then you are asked for m'ship number and email when in fact one wants to speak to the legal dept who then says they can only give limited advice because it is the management that is responsible for all the changes in the contract including the wording

Ofsted are the same no one gives the same answer when you ring them hence the continuing confusion about so many aspects of practice

DfE are tight lipped and infuriating

LAs are hiding in their bunkers while the threat of their decimation approaches fast

Local childminding associations...not sure why we pay them to say nothing?

I don't think I have ever wanted to be more indepedent than at this present moment while the associations fight for our costly custom!!

We have 2 threads on this and I have replied to your Pacey post about contracts...