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]

That is what I was informed and have shared with you...maybe someone wants to check again
If different info is given it will only cause confusion but I hope the legal dept gave the right information?

I have just posted the question of validity of contracts with the 'NCMA' logo on PACEY Local and hopefully we will get a clear answer...

[angeldelight]

No input from me

Just going to say I'm sooooo glad I changed to MM years ago

Sounds like your all having a great time with this

Why don't you all change to MM if your going to change your paperwork etc anyway? ...problem solved ha ha

Angel xx

[Simona]

For those interested in receiving clarification on the serious matter of contract, validity and brand...the request has been posted on PACEY Local in the hope the m'ship dept will clarify where the NPF member has not been able to so far....until then we can only wait
Thanks for your all your contributions

[Simona]

Like you Smiley I do not use their paperwork but have started using the contracts recently in addition to my more comprehensive Terms and Conditions and other information provided to parents
I suppose we feel more 'legally' protected by using theirs but not sure it works that way...so it is an added cost
Glad to hear you share the notion that the debate was really leading to a 'done deal'...we all felt like that at my meeting
Professional refers to the associations not to us as 'professional members'...I too would have liked this as referring to us not them...too late now but at least now we have a choice of who will represent us the best???

[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.

[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.

[rickysmiths]

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.

I don't think this is what Chatterbox has said.

I don't see how the NCMA ones can suddenly expire in 11th March 2014!! They are still valid contracts and they ADVISE you to review them every 12 months but it is not compulsory.

To be honest anyone who still has a 3 page NCMA Contract in use with a parent still has a valid contract.

[Simona]

I won't Dm as there is nothing to debate

Apologies if you felt I was dictating to you...I was not and never meant to
There are new cms on this forum asking for advice about insurance in other posts so I explained the difference...I did start the reply by saying 'I feel' making clear it was my view

[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.

[Simona]

Well well...one learns new things everyday...thanks for all the explanations as I have been with PACEY since I started cminding and stuck with their PLI/motor/household insurance but I can see there is going to be more choice soon

Has anyone heard of TRIO?...apparently they are another association representing cms but I have not seen anything about them...are they worth adding to the 4 now representing cms?

[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