Child's Nursery issue - unfair terms?

[MgintyMIA]

Hi,

I was wondering /hoping whether anyone could offer any thoughts or advice on a problem we have with our child’s nursery head office. It’s a bit of a long post but I wanted to get as much info in as possible.

 

We were given a letter last week from the manager stating that head office were implementing a new policy that required our child to attend at least 3 sessions a week (sessions are split into am/ pm so one day is 2 sessions). This was then followed up by a letter dated 16th Jan (but not received until 20th Jan) from the head office which essentially re-iterated this and gave a months notice to either comply or withdraw your child as the nursery would be unable to provide childcare (although after emailing them – see below - we have been given until 1st March to make alternative arrangements if necessary). We have a problem with this on two levels

 

1) We don’t believe 3 sessions would be beneficial in terms of his development as he currently does 2 mornings a week at nursery and 2 afternoons at a playgroup which we feel is sufficient. Our child is 2 ½.

2) That this new policy is a revenue generating exercise

 

We are not the only parents concerned – apparently there are 3 groups of parents –those that were going to move onto 3 sessions for whatever reasons and so are not bothered; those like ourselves that don’t believe it is beneficial and those that simply cannot afford it.

We have not, as far as I or my OH is aware, signed a contract or been given any terms and conditions. The only documentation we have is a ’Parent Contract’ which could be seen as T & C’s and states that:

 

1) Fees are subject to a reasonable increase from time to time, fees are reviewed on an annual basis in September (they were not increased in Sept)

2) They reserve the right to make lawful and reasonable changes to the policies and procedures, premises and nursery calendar and timetable.

 

We emailed the nursery head office asking to explain why they are doing this and had a reply from the trainee operations manager (apparently no-one more senior?!). The reply didn’t explain the reasoning behind this but did state that an allowance was made to have 2 sessions as a temporary measure due to high demand and this was made clear to the manager. As we signed up in October I asked for clarification (in a further email) whether this was a new policy (as stated in the letters) or an existing policy (implied by the temporary measure) and that this was not mentioned in any documentation or verbally. I also asked for a copy of the T & C’s. This is the reply (nursery name removed):

 

“…Firstly In relation to attaining more of ABC’s Policies and Procedures other than the Parent Contract you have, please refer to xxxxx as she should have on site a seperate manual for: Health & Safety, Childcare, Reports and Service.

 

The allowance of less than 3 session attenders was only temporary. This policy is only outlined by ABC to Managers as they must enforce it on a day to day basis when visits arise.

 

ABC concludes the increase in sessions is of mutual benefit to both ABC and the children as Staff are able to build 'Key Worker' group relationships in line with the Early Years Foundation Stage. This means the more a child attends the greater a bond is created between staff and the child allowing for each child to progress at their own pace.

 

In conclusion I am still unclear as to what the policy on 2 sessions was - we don’t have anything in writing stating anyting about number of sessions and I’m still not convinced that forcing a child to have 3 sessions without a consideration to what else they may be doing is beneficial. Also why did they not mention the reason given in the initial letter?

 

Can the nursery do this as I believe that they are imposing unfair terms/ changing the terms unlawfully? Or do I just have to swallow it?

I don’t want to remove my child as he is building a good bond with his key Workers as is and they have out in a lot of hard work.

Thanks for any input.

 

[buzby]

To be fair - it is their nursery and they can choose what policies to implement. If htey decide they require a minimum of 6 sessions per week, then providing they give notice, there are no formal issues - apart from lousy customer relations.

 

As for it being a revenue generating exercise - of course it it, but last time I looked that has not been made unlawful. Clearly they have a requirement to keep their nursery at high levels of capacity. Since many parents may have a requirement for 8 or even 10 sessions per week, someone only using 3 is preventing that place being used to the full.

 

You are certainly free to take your child to any nursery that you like that has the capacity, but in vire of the small change (a 4 session minimum) I think they can be shown to be fair under the circumstances.

[MgintyMIA]

Perhaps I am getting too emotive about it ....but..

I understand that it's their nursery and they can implement whatever policy they want but where is the consumer protection?

Surely we have entered into an agreement with them that our child attends for 2 sessions? Plus we were never told that it was a temporary measure when we enrolled our child and it is unclear whether this is a new policy or not.

 

I never stated that it's unlawful to generate revenue, but that changing the terms of the contract was unlawful, particularly when they state that fees are reviewed in Sept.

 

The nursery is already at high levels of capacity. If we want to increase our sessions there are only 3 possible afternoon sessions to chose from so whilst I understand your argument (although I think it is ridiculous) I don't think it is valid in this case.

 

We have already accepted that we will have to go with the 3 sessions and fortunately we can afford it however many parents cannot and it is this that makes me want to challenge the change in policy. The actual nursery staff do not support this policy either which makes me even more cross that the head office have implemented a blanket policy such as this with no flexibility or thought for the child.

[buzby]

Let's be practical - your arrangement for 2 sessions per week, was this formalised in any way? By that I mean a written contract where the nursery stated that they would accept your child on that basis? Without this, if the agreement simply was 'I'd like 2 sessions weekly' that doesn't come across as a formal commitment - just that you intended taking up those slots and would pay for them accordingly. As such, their advance notice of a 3 slot minimum would certainly be in order.

 

If you forgive me, your stance that other parents 'may not be able to afford it' has got nothing to do with the matter. The nursery is not a community funded enterprise, it is a commercial concern. If the management decide to make a 3 session minimum their policy, that decision is theirs alone. If the nursery was operating at satisfactory accommodation levels, there would be no need to implement the minimum, so perhahs your ideas and theirs of what equates to being profitable are not the same? Of course, if part of a 'chain', then implementing a policy across the board makes sense for management as all the branches will be operating alike.

 

Their business will either benefit, or parents will decide it is unfair and go elsewhere. This is what 'consumer choice' is all about.

 

Let's face it - what the local staff think is neither here nor there, because if the policy wasn't implemented and 6 months down the line they decide to close the nursery completely - which was the better option?

[MgintyMIA]

I wasn't sure whether we had a case or not and it would seem unfortunately we haven't. Obviously not the answer I was hoping for although I was expecting I wouldn't be able to do anything other than write a letter of complaint to the Head Office.

 

I'm fully aware that this is a commercial enterprise that has to make money however I object to the underhand way they have gone about this. I would have been far happier if they had just raised prices in September and kept the number of sessions the same. That is effectively what will happen as we will be possibly paying for a sessions that may not be used.

 

As for implementing a rigid blanket policy, I guess you and I have different ideas on how to operate a business such as this. An Operating Manual with guidelines would be seem more suitable to me as each nursery, whilst part of a chain, is operating in different environments and should need to adapt. And I would also want to consider the views of staff 'on the front line'. But each to their own.

 

To be honest, consumer choice doesn't really have anything to do with this. Of course I can exercise my option but life just isn't that simple sometimes.

 

As for the last comment about closing the nursery...I really do not see the relevance of that at all. It's already operating at close to capacity so why close it?

Anyway I think we can consider the matter closed.

Thanks for your input and helping me make a decision.