Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wondering if any parents or nannies can help with me the following question?

My eldest child is currently in a nanny share with another family a couple of days a week, the other family have 2 children, when the times comes, if my second child joined the share, should the nanny's hourly rate go up and if so, what to? (it's currently ?12 an hour not including tax and NI.)

Or would the nanny's pay remain the same even tho a sibling has joined and we just increase our percentage of the pay to 50% of the monthly total (we currently pay less than the other family as we have just 1 child in the share and the other family have 2) in other words it would benefit the other family but our nanny's pay would not increase? I know it's prob a stupid question but I don't have any idea what the norm is and wanted to sound it our before getting into discussions..

thanks!

Are all the children of similar age? We've had one child in a nanny share with 2 older children and have always split the costs 50/50 as the other boys were of school age so our child had one on one care for a large percentage of the time. Also do you share the hosting, again the other family have always hosted and by default our child ends up eating their a lot of the time which we don't pay any extra for. Not really helping you with answers but just offering food for thought on alternatives!

I believe the differing rates for sole care/nannyshare is to compensate the nanny for the logistical hassle of having to deal with two different families, rather than pure number of kids. For example, I think in most cases nannies charge the same for one or two children from the same family. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily expect the nanny to increase her rates in this case. However, 4 kids is an awful lot for one nanny so she may well ask for extra in recognition of the increased handful. In any event, the split should probably go to 50-50, irrespective of the nanny's wage.


Your contract, assuming you have one, may also deal with this - worth having a look.

As a nanny I wouldn't expect a pay increase if the mother had another child. What you could do (assuming she's managing 3 children), is find a new family that has a new baby too or a child of similar age to your older child. If you're in a nanny share for the childrens benefit over financial reasons, could you have her on own her being your nanny only??? I agree with RichJ, 4 kids is a lot even for a very experienced capable nanny!

The share is at the other family's house and our nanny works 4 days a week for them, with my child sharing there on 2 days. By the time my second child potentially joined the share, their eldest child would have started school and their youngest might be at pre-school for some mornings, so I think our nanny would only have all 4 children for an hour in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon, and this would only be on 2 days a week as she just looks after the other family's children the rest of the week. If their youngest does indeed go to preschool in the mornings on the same 2 days my children were there, it could therefore be that our nanny only had my two for that part of the day.

Sbot can I ask is your feeling that you wouldn't expect a pay increase for a sibling being added the same given that our nanny works from the other family's house and so they are, as it were, the primary family? Or does that make no difference to your thinking?

I looked into this for a potential nanny share for two sets of siblings 3 and 1. The feedback I got was that some nannies would consider it but they would be at the most experienced end of things, and would provably have worked with multiples. The difference between families of four and nanny shares are that you may not get the age spread of a family, twins etc aside, and that the children won't be used to the arrangement and be less clear about their role within it than a child with a larger family is.


We have three, and would like four, and I would recruit a nanny to look after them, but all four would not be around all day.

Would the nanny have to do the school and pre-school run with all 4 children on those days? That sounds very challenging! I have to say I would be worried about those ratios with one nanny, more so than the salary/pay issue.


Moneywise, my instinct is that if you had a sole-charge nanny for your family and added a sibling, that would be one thing. But adding a sibling to a complicated share like that would seem a bit more like a childminder situation and I think the nanny would be reasonable to expect more money.

We did a 4 child nanny share and it was fine. No doubt it depends on ages and behaviour of children. With toddlers it may be tricky but children of school age should be able to walk sensibly to school. Generally I have found they behave better for a nanny than a parent. We had 2 in reception, one in nursery mornings only and one in preschool elsewhere. So lots of pick ups and drop offs but a very easy time after school as they played with each other and did not need much input from nanny. I would expect to pay more because you get children need more from a nanny than older children.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...