Facts of the case
A couple enrolled their 10-month-old daughter in a childcare centre but were dissatisfied with the services provided.
Their main concerns included poor communication with the child’s allocated carer, a lack of regular updates on the child’s well-being while at the childcare facility, the uniform provided being too small, and the childcare centre incorrectly applying for 208 hours of government subsidised childcare when the child was only registered for 152 hours. After a week, the couple decided to transfer their daughter to a different childcare centre.
The parents requested a full refund from the original childcare centre for the registration fee, the app subscription, the uniform, and compensation for the lost subsidised hours, which they had to pay for at the new centre. In total, the couple claimed €622 from the childcare centre.
After failing to reach an amicable agreement with the service provider, the couple filed an official complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs at the MCCAA to start a conciliation process. However, despite the office’s efforts, no resolution was achieved. Consequently, the couple chose to escalate the matter to the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
Tribunal’s considerations
Initially, the tribunal noted that the couple was seeking a refund of €622, which included the registration fee, app subscription, uniform and compensation for the lost subsidised hours. The tribunal also observed that the dispute centred on the quality of the service provided by the childcare centre.
Specifically, the couple raised concerns about a general lack of communication with the child’s carer and also regarding their child’s activities, such as updates on feeding, sleeping, and nappy changes. They also complained that the uniform provided was too small.
The tribunal also considered the service provider’s response to the couple’s complaint
Additionally, there were instances when the parents were asked to pick up their daughter due to illness, but upon arrival, they found that she was not sick.
Another issue was the childcare centre applying for more government-subsidised hours than the parents had requested and registered for. As a result of these problems, the couple stopped using the childcare centre’s services after only a week, and enrolled their child in a different centre.
The tribunal also considered the service provider’s response to the couple’s complaint. The centre argued that the parents had been regularly updated on their child’s activities through the centre’s app. Regarding the uniform, the service provider stated that the couple was aware of the uniform policy from the start and did not raise any concerns about the size when they made the purchase.
As for the incident where the parents were asked to collect their child due to illness, the centre explained that their sickness policy requires children with high temperature to be sent home for their own well-being and the safety of other children.
Based on these points, the service provider maintained that the couple’s request for compensation was unjustified.
The tribunal further observed that the documentation provided by the childcare centre clearly indicated that the couple’s complaint about a lack of communication regarding their child’s activities was overstated, as there had been an online meeting with the caregiver and updates were provided through the app.
However, the centre’s explanation for registering the child for more government-subsidised hours than the parents had requested was unconvincing, raising doubts about the true intent behind this practice.
As for the claim that the couple did not complain about the uniform size, the tribunal deemed this irrelevant, noting that the uniform policy was imposed on a “take it or leave it” basis.
Given the circumstances, the tribunal acknowledged that it is understandable that the couple had changed their mind about the childcare centre, particularly as the services provided did not meet their expectations, and trust is paramount when dealing with very young children. However, the tribunal also noted that no evidence was presented to justify cancelling the sales contract without any repercussions.
Therefore, the tribunal explained that it would assess the dispute through the lens of equity, as outlined in article 21 (1) of the Consumer Affairs Act, to ensure a fair and proportionate remedy.
Tribunal’s decision
For the reasons outlined above, the tribunal decided to partially uphold the couple’s claim and ordered the childcare centre to refund half of the registration fee, half of the app registration fee, the full amount paid for the uniform, and a full refund for the lost absence allowance. This brought the total amount owed to the couple to €423.
Additionally, the tribunal ruled that both the defendant company and the complainant would equally share the costs associated with the tribunal’s proceedings.
Odette Vella is director, Information and Research Directorate, MCCAA