Ofsted registration fee

[uf353432]

So I got to thinking - as you do - what with childminders saying they would pay a bit more to Ofsted happily, begrudgingly, but probably would.

So we get inspected every 3-4 years, and Ofsted complain the cost to inspect us is £400 approx each.

So we pay £35 a year - £105 (over 3yrs) - £140 (over 4 yrs)

Are we sure we would be happy to pay £200 a year? contributing £600-£800 in the same 3-4 yr period for an inspection that apparently costs them £400?

Just checkin

[murrayspud]

I did also think about this - surely it makes more sense (if we HAVE TO pay more) to take the cost of inspection (£400) and divide it by 4 (approx years between inspections) and charge £100 per year.

Am I right in thinking as a govt dept OFSTED would receive funding from Govt, or are all their costs paid for by those registered with them????

Just something to muse over........

Kathryn x

[miffy]

No, I don't think we should be saying we would be happy to accept increases in fees to stay registered - lots of cm's wouldn't want that and a blanket figure takes no account of peoples earnings, for some £200 wouldn't be much but for others it would be unaffordable.

Miffy xx

[Rubybubbles]

No, I don't think we should be saying we would be happy to accept increases in fees to stay registered - lots of cm's wouldn't want that and a blanket figure takes no account of peoples earnings, for some £200 wouldn't be much but for others it would be unaffordable.

Miffy xx

I agree, having just moved and in June have Ofsted and ICO due, then in July Insurance and not starting work until July, and also the rest of my tax 31st July from last year

[Pipsqueak]

So I got to thinking - as you do - what with childminders saying they would pay a bit more to Ofsted happily, begrudgingly, but probably would.

So we get inspected every 3-4 years, and Ofsted complain the cost to inspect us is £400 approx each.

So we pay £35 a year - £105 (over 3yrs) - £140 (over 4 yrs)

Are we sure we would be happy to pay £200 a year? contributing £600-£800 in the same 3-4 yr period for an inspection that apparently costs them £400?

Just checkin

where are you getting 4 years from? So far I have been on a 2.5yr cycle - and I am graded good with o/s areas - my friend is outstanding and she has been on a 2.5yr cycle. I WISH for 4 years - they keep knocking 6 months off when I should be inspected..... at this rate I will be inspected as the last inpsector is leaving!!


Paying ie/£200 pa is going to be huge chunk to find for some minders - particuarly those who don't or aren't working to capacity. That blanket fee is not taking account of fluctations of work/income that most of us experience is it.

[JCrakers]

No, I wouldn't want to pay £200..maybe £100 is more like it

[rickysmiths]

I think we have all got to be prepared to pay more ans surely £150-£200pa is not too much but as I suggested in another thread maybe their could be s sliding scale depending on the number of children you are registered for.

To me this is far better than the prospect of paying 10% of my Gross income to the Local 'Satisfactory' graded Private Profit making Nursery who is not nutral but my rival to train and inspect me I think not! If this happens I will be giving up that's for sure.

[Pipsqueak]

I think we have all got to be prepared to pay more ans surely £150-£200pa is not too much but as I suggested in another thread maybe their could be s sliding scale depending on the number of children you are registered for.

To me this is far better than the prospect of paying 10% of my Gross income to the Local 'Satisfactory' graded Private Profit making Nursery who is not nutral but my rival to train and inspect me I think not! If this happens I will be giving up that's for sure.

Oh, I do agree about paying more, thats for sure.
I think £100-150 would be more accurate.

And it will be the day i close my doors for good having a local nursery (many of whom I am better than) traipse through my home and 'inspect' me.... no no no

[Penny1959]

You are right about the costs uf - so if it costs £400 to inspect a cm - then the cost should be shared over the period of say 3 yrs.

However it must cost more than £400 to inspect a nursery - sometimes 2 inspectors and a whole day - I don't think they pay the 'true' cost of inspection either.


As I have said before my suggestion of £200 was in a way calling their bluff as I do't think this is just about cost - and therefore if it was said that cms would IF NEEDED pay more - that would stop the discussion in its tracks.

But it has not - ET is on a mission - but interestingly the only government opinion other than ET's has come from the DfE who have just spoke about increasing the FE.

The discussion about 5 under 5's - well that is already A POSSIBILITY under the revised EYFS and Miffy, myself and others are trying to get clarification - just what does ' must not exceed 6 under 8's' actually mean?

And although in the revised EYFS it does talk about exceptional circumstances - and the letter from DfE to Miffy makes clear for children already in our care - for continuity of care - or for siblings - it is not a big step to to change from in exceptional circumstances - to all the time.

The biggest worry from ETs comments - is not the 5 under 5's or the possibility of paying more for inspections - it is the agency suggestion, because once we have gone down that route - the agency - whoever they are will be able to change terms and conditions for being in the agency network as often as they like. (plus it won't save money and parents will pay more for less choice, childminders will once again be the lowest of lowest in terms of professional respect)


Penny

Penny

[rickysmiths]

You are right about the costs uf - so if it costs £400 to inspect a cm - then the cost should be shared over the period of say 3 yrs.

However it must cost more than £400 to inspect a nursery - sometimes 2 inspectors and a whole day - I don't think they pay the 'true' cost of inspection either.


As I have said before my suggestion of £200 was in a way calling their bluff as I do't think this is just about cost - and therefore if it was said that cms would IF NEEDED pay more - that would stop the discussion in its tracks.

But it has not - ET is on a mission - but interestingly the only government opinion other than ET's has come from the DfE who have just spoke about increasing the FE.

The discussion about 5 under 5's - well that is already A POSSIBILITY under the revised EYFS and Miffy, myself and others are trying to get clarification - just what does ' must not exceed 6 under 8's' actually mean?

And although in the revised EYFS it does talk about exceptional circumstances - and the letter from DfE to Miffy makes clear for children already in our care - for continuity of care - or for siblings - it is not a big step to to change from in exceptional circumstances - to all the time.

The biggest worry from ETs comments - is not the 5 under 5's or the possibility of paying more for inspections - it is the agency suggestion, because once we have gone down that route - the agency - whoever they are will be able to change terms and conditions for being in the agency network as often as they like. (plus it won't save money and parents will pay more for less choice, childminders will once again be the lowest of lowest in terms of professional respect)


Penny

Penny

Hear Hear Penny. It is very frightening, more so that it clearly hasn't worked in Holland.

What amuses me is that they would dare do it to any other Self Employed Professional would they. Can you imagine if they said all Electricians now had to pay a % of their income to Travis Perkins who would check their qualifications, train them and tell them how they were to work

[wendywu]

Why on earth would you swap to an agency scheme that has failed.

Has anyone asked ET to explain this.

What makes me mad is they say the childcare cost is too high, so for an average 10 hour day is £45. But washing machine repair man will charge that call out fee just to look at a leak.

So what makes my full day of care worth any less than a man to tell me in 5 minutes 'needs a new seal love'.

Perhaps ET would like to bring the cost of my day to day living down first before she starts messing with my income

[marnieb]

In my first 2 yrs of minding I found the £35 difficult to pay as I was barely making any money.

It wiould have to be some sort of scale - especially as some cm's I know begrudge even the £35 - perhaps increasing each year you work??

[wendywu]

I think it should be done on a capped scale governed by your net profit. Say from £35 up to £200.

You could be registered for max numbers but that does not mean you can fill them. So number of spaces may not work.

[zippy]

I don't think earnings have anything to do with it, it's up to you to manage your business so you make enough profit, if you can't do that you should either start another business or get a job. I'd be happy to pay £200 a year as long as there was an option to pay monthly. I also think a higher fee would stop new people joining on a whim, it would take more consideration if the fee was higher. I mean come on £35 a year, it's been nice while it's lasted but it is a bit of a joke.

[zippy]

Just worked out a £200 fee would mean you putting away either £3.85 a week or 16.67 a month. Now I honestly don't believe there is any childminders out there that could not afford this amount, and if you can't then something must be seriously wrong with your business model. The only way I could see this being a problem is when someone goes on maternity leave, or are incapacitated but maybe they could build something in to suspend registration and fees for this period.

[LauraS]

I don't think earnings have anything to do with it, it's up to you to manage your business so you make enough profit, if you can't do that you should either start another business or get a job. I'd be happy to pay £200 a year as long as there was an option to pay monthly. I also think a higher fee would stop new people joining on a whim, it would take more consideration if the fee was higher. I mean come on £35 a year, it's been nice while it's lasted but it is a bit of a joke.

I totally agree with this. It cant depend on earnings - why should someone who is full and successfully making a decent profit subsidise the inspection costs of those who are new/not doing so well.

My current employent is in a niche specialist role. In order to take professional qualifications/practice/progress in the role it is necessary to join the professional body which oversees us, which costs about £14/month (and offers little return, to be honest). I don't see paying Ofsted as being any different to this, really.

[teacake2]

I am sorry but I do find the £35 to pay a struggle, it is not just that that has to be paid, there is insurance, bills etc, I have had advice from the business unit, but until someone magics children out of the air for me to look after then I cannot afford to pay any more and personally do not see why I should have to.
Teacake2

[FussyElmo]

I don't think earnings have anything to do with it, it's up to you to manage your business so you make enough profit, if you can't do that you should either start another business or get a job. I'd be happy to pay £200 a year as long as there was an option to pay monthly. I also think a higher fee would stop new people joining on a whim, it would take more consideration if the fee was higher. I mean come on £35 a year, it's been nice while it's lasted but it is a bit of a joke.

Im sorry but thats highly insulting. I manage my business really well thank you very much but i cannot magic children out of thin air. I dont live in an affluent area and quite frankly most people around here are on benefits because they are better off being so.

[mum2two]

Im sorry but thats highly insulting. I manage my business really well thank you very much but i cannot magic children out of thin air. I dont live in an affluent area and quite frankly most people around here are on benefits because they are better off being so.

I think that's what the goverment should be focusing on more - benefits!!

If it's better for parents to stay at home & claim benefits then they will. Concentrate on sorting that mess out! Clamp down - timescales, caps I don't know - anything that makes it more worthwhile going to work.

Then more people in work, more revenue for the government from taxes & less money being 'handed out'. Forget the £400 per childminder inspection every 3-4 yrs - stop handing out £20k a yr in benefits to someone who is perfectly capable of working!!

Sorry - off topic - but rant over!!!

xx

[miffy]

I don't think earnings have anything to do with it, it's up to you to manage your business so you make enough profit, if you can't do that you should either start another business or get a job. I'd be happy to pay £200 a year as long as there was an option to pay monthly. I also think a higher fee would stop new people joining on a whim, it would take more consideration if the fee was higher. I mean come on £35 a year, it's been nice while it's lasted but it is a bit of a joke.

Well I'm not laughing! It's not just about how you "manage your business", in some areas work is hard to find and rates can be low. I'm not sure many cm's join "on a whim" anymore either - at a meeting last week I was told average start-up costs were £500 (that would entail a pretty big whim in my view!).

Anyway before we talk about chucking money at Ofsted I would like to know how they have worked their costings out. Maybe they would be more cost effective if they didn't spend so long doing individual inspections (is 5 hours plus really necessary?); worked closer to home, less travelling = more time on the job; didn't put inspectors up in hotels for weeks at a time whilst they "target" an area.

Oh and for those who remember the "good old days" we never paid for inspections at all and we had TWO a year.

And then there was the hoo-ha when Ofsted wanted to introduce a fee (£100 if I remember correctly), and it was NCMA who fought for all childminders to have that fee reduced.

I don't think just paying more for inspections will halt the deregulation train so we should be careful we don't end up paying more for a system we don't want!

Sorry that was much longer than I meant it to be!

Miffy xx