Nursery Extortion

bris

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2018/02/-pay-monthly-mobile-customers-with-three-face-mid-contract-price-rises/

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2018/02/-pay-monthly-mobile-customers-with-three-face-mid-contract-price-rises/

Did you bother to check ofcom or their guidance?

Theres this article from them, or this one and then of course you have the guidance itself.


Now look at the examples the guidance gives:

• Example 1: discretionary price increases
The subscriber agrees and enters into a 24-month contract for services on terms
that the core subscription price will be £10 per month. The contract also contains a
term to the effect that the CP may increase the agreed core subscription price8 by
up to a certain amount, percentage or index-linked level (such as RPI).9
Ofcom is
likely to treat any exercise of the discretion to increase this agreed price during the
fixed minimum term of the contract as a modification meeting GC9.6’s material
detriment requirement.
Ofcom’s concern is with the application of price and price variation terms which give
the CP discretion as to, for example, the possibility, amount and/or timing of a price
4
increase. We are likely to take a similar approach to that above to the application of
contract terms that reserve such discretion and/or are to the same or similar effects
as those in example 1.

• Example 2: agreed prices
The subscriber agrees and enters into a 24-month contract on terms that the core
subscription price will be £X per month for the first 12-months (or some other
period) and £X + £Y (or £X + Y%) for the second 12-months (or some other period).
On the basis that the relevant price terms are sufficiently prominent and transparent
that the subscriber can properly be said to have agreed on an informed basis, at the
point of sale, to the relevant tiered price(s), Ofcom would not regard the application
of the agreed price in the second period as a modification of the contract capable of
meeting GC9.6's material detriment requirement.

• Example 3: agreed prices
The subscriber agrees and enters into a 24-month contract on terms that the
agreed core subscription price will be £X per month for the first 12-months (or some
other period) and £X + RPI10 for the second 12-months (or some other period). On
the basis that the relevant price terms are sufficiently prominent and transparent
that the subscriber can properly be said to have agreed on an informed basis, at the
point of sale, to the relevant tiered price(s), Ofcom would not regard the application
of the agreed price in the second period as a modification of the contract capable of
meeting GC9.6's material detriment requirement.

A1.15 As set out above, the position in examples 2 and 3 depends on the relevant price
terms being sufficiently prominent and transparent that the subscriber can properly
be said to have agreed on an informed basis, at the point of sale, to the relevant
tiered price(s). Where that is so, the application of the agreed price(s) at the
relevant time(s) would not be a modification of the amount he or she has agreed
and is bound to pay. Most clearly, this proviso as to prominence and transparency
could be met where CPs market offers, and enter into contract terms, in a way that
sets out with equal prominence that the contract price is £X in period 1 and £Y in
period 2 (or some other periods).

Compare examples 1 and 3.

In one you have a term allowing them to increase the price, but no timing agreed. Thus ofcom will treat it as a material detriment which attracts cancellation rights. In three, you have the term allowing the increase plus the timing agreed and thus, is the contract price that was agreed at the time of entering the contract rather than a contractual variation giving rise to material detriment.

ETA: That is to say that ofcom require them to specify the level of increase (%, indexed, or specific £ amount) plus the timing, plus make that term prominent and transparent enough that the consumer was able to make an informed choice at the point the contract was formed (ie not buried in small print they received a week later).

Undervalued

General_Applause wrote: »

You can't afford to live where you are with children.


We raised our three with just me on a maximum salary of 18k. My wife stayed at home and looked after them.


Paying four grand a month, a MONTH is just stupid.


Have you looked into hiring an au-pair or nanny? It has to be cheaper than 4 grand a month.

Good for you!

However if your wife could have commanded a six figure salary she may well have opted to work full time and pay for this sort of level of childcare. It is a free country and it provides employment for others.

With full employment costs, overheads and other expenses it may well not have been cheaper to employ a nanny. There are other factors too, what about if the nanny was sick? Using a reputable nursery avoids those problems.

There is a big world out there with wildly differing incomes and expectations!

Undervalued

Les79 wrote: »

I don't think it is a free country to be honest...


I think that the well-paid jobs are generally around London and that businesses take advantage of that.


In contrast, a family from the North could probably support one or more children on 18k a year and still pay for childcare.


And it infuriates me for three reasons:


1. It does create either a Rich-Poor or North-South divide with people in this country (someone who manages on 18k a year and someone who manages on megabucks a year can't get along).


2. It is just a colossal waste of money! Why can't some of that money paid in childcare fees go towards helping homeless people on the streets etc? Or even the men, women and children dying abroad due to dodgy regimes? Instead it goes to either greedy Nurseries and/or greedy landlords who want a bigger slice of the pie (or whoever is squeezing their balls!)


3. OP/partner is potentially spending SO MUCH less time with their children than the General Applause user you quoted! Life is short to be fair, never know when you're going to clock off and it would really suck if you clocked off midway through a 60 hour week whilst your children were in their £3k a month nursey wouldn't it? Or do Londoners not really care about that sort of thing?

OK, some quite fundamental issues here and there are valid points of view on both sides.

Regarding point 2...

Is the nursery being greedy? Or are the fees simply a reflection on the total costs of providing a (hopefully) top notch service with good staff in an expensive area? Many people who have never experienced running a professional business have little idea of what it costs and why the fees, which naturally seem expensive to the client, have to be as high as they are.

robatwork

I guess the elephant in the (nursery) room is - can you afford for you or your partner to have a career break to look after your children?

In the long run that's better for you & your children, and you won't feel extorted from either.

Not judging, just asking.

sheramber

We’ve found another nursery just around the conner from this one that is just as nice.

In an area that has a shortage of child care facilities you have found one that not only is much cheaper but has available space.

I would be questioning why it has available space.

Surely a good nursery in an area with a shortage of places would have a waiting list.