Parents have just days left to save up to £7,500 on childcare – check if you're eligible
CHILD'S PAY Parents have just days left to save up to £7,500 on childcare – check if you're eligible
PARENTS have just days left to save as much as £7,500 on childcare following a major government change.
The Department for Education (DfE) is rolling out more free childcare for working families - but the deadline to apply is fast approaching.
1
Parents with children aged from nine months can now apply for free childcare hours
Credit: Alamy
From September, parents will be able to access up to 30 hours for children aged nine months up to four years old.
However, you must get your application in by August 31 if you want to receive the funding by the start of the 2025/26 academic year.
You can apply for funding from September if your child turns nine months old between April 1 and August 31.
Stephen Morgan, early education minister, said: "This landmark expansion of funded childcare will help parents save money, work in the jobs they love, and give more children the best start through high-quality early education."
The rollout of extra free hours of childcare to working parents from next month is the final phase in a three-part expanion.
Phase one began in April 2024 and saw eligible working parents of two-year-olds able to apply for 15 hours of free childcare.
Phase two saw 15 hours free childcare extended to eligible working parents of children aged nine months to three years old in September 2024.
The expansion was announced by the previous Conservative government during its 2023 Spring Statement.
Previously, parents could only claim 15 free hours for three and four-year-olds in England.
The Government has said parents using the full 30 hours from next month will save around £7,500 a year.
Freebies for parents worth £2,900
Holly Yildiz, a mother of two, will be accessing 30 hours of funded childcare from September.
She said: "Formal childcare has been brilliant for my children - it's amazing to see how much they've grown, not just with learning but in confidence and friendships too.
"I really feel like they're being set up for school and life in the best way.
"The financial support has been a huge help - both children will get 30 funded hours from September, which takes a big weight off our shoulders."
It comes after fresh research by the DfE found just 45% of parents earning under £20,000 a year are aware of the expanded free childcare hours offering.
That's compared to 81% of those on annual salaries of over £65,000.
It's worth bearing in mind, you are only eligible for free hours of childcare if you are classed as a "working" parent.
You meet this criteria if you individually earn more than £9,518, but less than £100,000 a year.
If you're in a couple, you must both earn at least £9,518 and neither one of you can earn more than £100,000 adjusted net income.
Your adjusted net income is your total taxable income, including your salary, rental income and money from freelance work.
The full eligibility criteria for free childcare hours can be found on the Childcare Choices website - www.childcarechoices.gov.uk.
How to apply
Families in England can apply for free hours childcare via the gov.uk website.
You have to first set up a childcare account and if your application is approved you are sent an 11-digit code that proves you're eligible to get free childcare.
You give this code to your childcare provider.
To keep getting free childcare hours you have to confirm your details are correct every three months via your childcare account.
You'll need some personal information to hand when you first apply - this includes your National Insurance (NI) number and Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR) number if you're self-employed.
You will also need the UK birth certificate reference number (if you have one) of any children you're applying for and the date you start or are due to start work.
The Government's website says the application takes around 20 minutes to complete.
Find out more via www.gov.uk/free-childcare-if-working.
Who's eligible for free childcare hours?
YOU could get up to 30 hours of free childcare per week through the Free Childcare for Working Parents scheme if you meet these conditions: Child's age : Your child must be between 9 months and 4 years old and live in England.
: Your child must be between 9 months and 4 years old and live in England. From September 2025 : All children aged 9 months to 2 years will qualify for 30 free hours per week.
: All children aged 9 months to 2 years will qualify for 30 free hours per week. Income: Each parent must earn at least £166 per week (equal to working 16 hours at minimum wage) and no more than £100,000 per year.
If you're not eligible for the 30-hour scheme, you can still get 15 free hours per week for all 3 and 4-year-olds, starting from the term after their third birthday until they begin school.
This is available to everyone, regardless of income or benefits.
Your 2-year-old can also get free childcare if you live in England and meet any of these conditions: You receive benefits like Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), or Universal Credit (with a household income of £15,400 or less after tax, not including benefit payments).
You get the guaranteed element of Pension Credit.
Your child is also eligible if they: Are in the care of a local authority.
Have an education, health, and care (EHC) plan.
Receive Disability Living Allowance.
Have been adopted or are under a special guardianship or child arrangements order.
Taking up the 15 free hours for 2-year-olds won't affect your benefits
Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.
Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
4 hours ago
- Daily Record
'Hyperbolic word salad': Row breaks out as Reform UK politician urges Scots council to rule out low emission zone
Councillor Jamie McGuire labelled the schemes in four Scottish cities as "little more than cash cows" in a blistering statement. A row has broken out after a Reform UK politician urged Renfrewshire Council to rule out ever introducing congestion charges or a low emission zone (LEZ). Councillor Jamie McGuire labelled the schemes as "little more than cash cows" and said the local authority "must have no part in this" in a blistering statement. But the elected member for Renfrew North and Braehead has been accused of "hyperbolic word salad" on an issue that was settled almost two years ago. In September 2023, the SNP administration confirmed it was not considering the introduction of an LEZ in Paisley or any other part of Renfrewshire at a full council meeting. Councillor McGuire, who defected from Labour to Nigel Farage's Reform in June, said: "Scotland's four main cities already have LEZs in place and their experience should be a warning. "These schemes have acted as little more than cash cows, generating income for councils while hitting those who can least afford it. "People on the lowest incomes, who are far more likely to drive older vehicles, have been penalised simply for trying to get to work, take their children to school or care for relatives. "Renfrewshire must have no part in this. A congestion charge or LEZ in our towns would be a hammer blow to local households and businesses. We are a working community that depends on accessible, affordable transport. "Many residents travel across Renfrewshire for work, education, and caring responsibilities, while small enterprises rely heavily on vans and cars to serve customers and move goods. "Imposing extra charges on them is not just unreasonable, it risks undermining our local economy and making it harder for people to live and work here." He added: "The SNP-led Renfrewshire Council must act now to rule out – clearly, unequivocally and permanently – ever introducing either a congestion charge or a low emission zone in our area. "Residents deserve certainty, not the constant threat of new charges hanging over them." Councillor Jim Paterson, SNP convener of the planning and climate change policy board, claimed Councillor McGuire was "trying to raise his profile" with the comments. The elected member for Renfrew South and Gallowhill said: "Another day, another fabricated outrage from Councillor McGuire. "The position of the SNP administration and indeed Councillor McGuire on this issue was settled in 2023 when the Conservative group called on the council to rule out establishing any form of LEZ in Paisley and wider Renfrewshire for the duration of this council term. "The SNP position along with a Labour amendment was agreed then by the vast majority of councillors which stated that the council would not consider the introduction of a low emission zone (LEZ/ULEZ) in Paisley or any other parts of Renfrewshire. That position remains unchanged. "Councillor McGuire, like his newfound political hero Nigel Farage, may like to trade in misinformation but to imply that there has been any change to the agreed position of 2023 is just nonsense and to suggest there is a 'constant fear' hanging over residents is just hyperbolic word salad from a councillor desperately trying to raise his profile to secure the top spot in his party's internal list for Holyrood 2026."
Glasgow Times
4 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
More Barrhead trees to be chopped down despite opposition
Briar Homes was granted permission to build on land around C-listed Lyoncross House, off Aurs Road, last year, despite council officials recommending the scheme was rejected. The firm then asked for approval to chop down 16 additional trees and retain 10 which were set to be removed in order to meet the drainage requirements of Scottish Water. Planners recommended the proposal was approved but over 40 residents had objected – and Cllr Annette Ireland, an independent, moved that it was rejected. However, Cllr Paul Edlin, Conservative, moved that permission to cut down the trees was granted. There were two votes for each proposal and the application was approved on the casting vote of Cllr Andrew Morrison, Conservative, who was chairing the planning meeting. READ MORE: Developer behind Barrhead homes plans to cut down more trees Approval for the homes was given in March last year despite officials having concerns over the lack of affordable housing, the impact on Dams to Darnley Country Park and the loss of 'established' trees. They also said the proposal was 'not anticipated or planned for' within a Barrhead South masterplan, with homes already under construction or approved fulfilling 'an allocated capacity'. Cllr Ireland, who didn't attend the original meeting where permission for the homes was granted due to ill health, said she was 'really shocked' it had passed. She said there were 'really good solid planning reasons' for it to be refused as well as a 'plea from education [department] about there not being enough spaces in the local primary school'. 'I think it's important given where we are now that we actually now protect the environment and the amenity of what is left after this permission was granted,' she added. READ MORE: Firm reveals plans to start building controversial new development A council official said it had been 'within the gift' of the planning committee to go against the recommendation to refuse. 'What the developer is seeking to do here is to implement the planning permission that has been granted to them,' she said. 'In their negotiations with Scottish Water, they were unable to include the attenuation tank in the original location.' The committee heard how the 'drainage plan approved by Scottish Water requires the provision of underground attenuation tanks' – which collect excess water. These tanks can 'only be provided in the west of the site at the lower end of the access road', an official said, and this 'necessitates the removal of the 16 trees that are to be felled if the section 42 application is granted'. Councillors were told it was the 'only solution they could find that Scottish Water would accept' and the developers had then tried to 'identify any other trees that they previously had permission to remove to try and retain those in order to create a balance'.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Why have we let side-hustle private landlords seize control of our housing – and our politics?
In the 1970s, private landlordism in the UK was a fringe part of the market – and a dying one. With council housing plentiful and house prices within the range of those with decent, working-class jobs, we did not need private landlords. In the mid-1970s, the Conservative Policy Council had written that their decline was 'quite irreversible' and that within a generation they would be 'as extinct as the dinosaur'. This prediction has proved to be among the worst ever made about the UK housing market. Since then, our reliance on private landlords has exploded. They are now the first port of call for everyone in the market who cannot afford to buy: students, graduates, families, pensioners, refugees and more. There are 2.8 million private landlords in Britain – almost twice as many people as work for NHS England and almost four times the UK's entire workforce of teachers. How did we go from one extreme to the other? We chose it. In 1979 Margaret Thatcher arrived with a new vision for the country. As she defunded and sold off council housing, her plan was that the private market would take its place. A big-bang deregulation of private renting in 1988 swept away rent control and introduced short tenancies where the tenant could be evicted at the end without the landlord needing a reason. Her expectation was big, strategic investment from the corporate world – there was demand for rented housing, so there would be supply. Competition would drive up standards. The state just needed to get out of the way and let it happen. But instead, something else happened. In 1996, 'buy-to-let' mortgages were launched, targeting everyman investors with a bit of spare cash. Previously, the only way to build up a property portfolio was to take out a commercial mortgage. This new product was available to anyone with a deposit, the repayments were interest only and the mortgages could be written off against tax. This came at a time when a global collapse of interest rates left lots of people without a viable pension plan, which meant it was suddenly the most obvious, and perhaps only, route to financial security. By 2001, the number of private landlords had exploded, but a survey revealed that only 9% of landlords saw the profession as their full-time occupation. It was the dawn of what the lawyer and writer Nick Bano terms 'the small-time side hustler'. Today, we live in the wreckage of this policy failure. The thirst for investment assets has driven house prices far beyond the reach of ordinary first-time buyers, especially in big cities. Meanwhile, rents have soared – as landlords make use of Thatcher's 'no-fault evictions' to create an effective ratchet system, where they can quickly and easily evict tenants in favour of whoever can pay the most. We have some of the lowest protections for renters in the developed world, and are, according to the London School of Economics 'at one end of the international spectrum on rent control' – ie the end that gives most freedom to landlords. The consequences of this are plain – people on lower incomes can no longer afford to live in the cities where they need to work; those who fall into homelessness are stuck in temporary accommodation indefinitely; and pensioners and families who cannot buy or find council housing are left without security. It is a great failure of policymakers of all parties over the past 35 years that they have simply sat back and let this happen. All of which brings me to Rushanara Ali. The homelessness minister resigned last Thursday after the revelation that she had kicked tenants out of her private rental property, before putting it back on the market at a significantly increased rent. This was, in effect, a classic example of the 'ratchet effect' of rent increases, and a major driver of the homelessness she is supposed to prevent. Ali resigned as minister, but retains the Labour whip and returns to the backbenches, where she will join the Labour MP for Ilford South, Jas Athwal, who was exposed last year for renting out properties with black mould and ant infestations. They are among 83 landlord MPs in the House of Commons – a list that includes the foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. Labour has more landlords among its ranks than any other party, with 43. And this is before we get into the House of Lords – a chamber previously made up exclusively of landowners. There are at least 134 landlord peers in the upper house, although the true number is likely to be much higher – with many holding properties via a trust. All of this poses a big problem in policy terms. Listen to the landlord lobby and you would imagine that policy has turned decisively in favour of tenants in recent years, with landlords' representative arm warning that forthcoming changes to tax, law and environmental requirements will drive 24% of its members to sell up. The legal change they are worried about is the Renters' Rights Act, which will abolish no-fault evictions and impose tougher standards for fixing serious disrepair – in other words, attempting to tackle the behaviour of Ali and Athwal respectively. But these laws have been desperately slow coming through. They are a package of changes first announced in April 2019, under the government of Theresa May. That they took six and a half years and a change of government to finally become law owed something to the Conservative party's fear of its backbenches, as Tory MPs pushed back hard against the removal of no-fault evictions. We will now get the act, with royal assent likely in September and implementation from 2026. It makes steps towards a more stable, European-style rental market. That it is coming at all shows progress, and perhaps the start of a break in the dominance of the landlord influence in parliament. That it has taken so long shows the control that force has had over our politics until now. Labour does also appear likely to impose a requirement to bring private rented homes up to a moderate standard of environmental efficiency by 2030 – though this faces continual challenge and was previously scrapped by the Conservatives after landlord pressure. Rental reforms, though, remain off limits, despite support from figures outside parliament such as Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham. Labour called even limited rent control 'cowardice' before the election. Over the past 35 years, we have dug ourselves into a pit. The dominance of the rental market by small-time side hustlers makes any reform perilous: if these landlords sell up, those who need somewhere to rent will be left in the lurch. If we want a functional housing market again, we need a long-term housing strategy that ends our reliance on side hustlers to meet complex housing needs and encourages an economy that treats homes as places to live, not an investment asset to replace a pension. But we are unlikely to ever see such a strategy when it is the side hustlers themselves entrusted to write it. Peter Apps is a contributing editor at Inside Housing and the author of Show Me the Bodies: How We Let Grenfell Happen
