More awarding organisations distance themselves from troubled provider

Two further awarding organisations have cut ties with Bright Assessing less than three months after NCFE told the troubled provider to stop running its qualifications.

OCR said it would not be dealing with “any new candidates” for the Warwickshire-based provider and fellow awarding body Ascentis said it had “withdrawn recognition with immediate effect”.

The dual move is understood to have left Warwickshire-based Bright without an awarding organisation.

NCFE (formerly the Northern Council
for Further Education) announced in February it had stopped certificating Bright courses after its investigation into allegations of malpractice.

The findings have not been made public, but a Bright spokesperson said it “vigorously disputes both the findings and the sanction” and lodged an appeal, which is currently in a third review stage.

A spokesperson for OCR said: “OCR is not certificating any new candidates. We will do our best to help any candidates that are currently registered with OCR.”

However, Bright was still displaying OCR’s logo on its website and also advertising teaching, assessing, back-to-work, and business-related courses as FE Week went to press.

A spokesperson for Ascentis said: “Ascentis has withdrawn recognition with immediate effect. Students registered with us will have the opportunity to be placed elsewhere.”

Bright chief executive Krissy Charles-Jones declined to comment on whether any awarding organisations were still accrediting Bright’s courses. She said: “We have terminated our agreement with OCR for all future learners…. They have not informed us that we are under any investigation.

“We terminated our agreement with Ascentis more than six months ago and only put a few learners through them.”

She added: “We are currently working to ensure all learners will be supported by an awarding body and determining which it will be. We aim to do this by May 16. Our main priority is to the learners.”

Bright was advertising the Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance (HABC) on its website until earlier this year when, according to HABC, the provider was suspended from running any HABC qualifications.

But, Ms Charles-Jones said: “We were never approved or used by Highfields and I didn’t ever sign any application or agreement to do so. They approached us to work with us but we decided not to do so. We have never done any learning or registrations through them.”

Meanwhile, an NCFE spokesperson confirmed that Bright had lost the first two stages of the awarding organisation’s appeals process.

Bright has entered the third and final NCFE appeal stage, due to conclude by the end of the month, with an Ofqual investigation the next possible stage.

“We are only going through the NCFE appeal process so we can progress our complaint about them to Ofqual,” said Ms Charles Jones.

However, an Ofqual spokesperson told FE Week in February: “NCFE kept us informed throughout its investigations into allegations of malpractice at Bright. We consider the action it has taken to be appropriate to protect the integrity of its qualifications and the interests of those taking them.”

Bright was listed on the Skills Funding Agency’s website on March 27 this year as a subcontractor for Chesterfield College, through a contract worth £1,175,000, Avant Partnership, through a £136,194 contract, and the Derbyshire Network, through a £22,000 contract.

Chesterfield College and Avant Partnership confirmed their Bright contracts had concluded and the Derbyshire Network declined to comment.

Ofqual said it was “being kept up-to-date” on the NCFE appeals process and enquiries should be made to its helpline on 0300 3033346.

Learners should email vocational.qualifications@ocr.org.uk, qualityassurance@ascentis.co.uk, or service@ncfe.org.uk for advice.

—————————————————————————–

Learners paying price

With OCR and Ascentis both distancing themselves from troubled provider Bright Assessing, and NCFE having done the same earlier this year, it’s clear something’s not right.

To her credit, Bright chief executive Krissy Charles Jones answered our initial queries as to what was going on — but the reply was one that pointed blame elsewhere.

It was Bright that terminated contracts or turned them down, she says. It was also, she told us, the last response she would be giving.

It’s a situation that’s getting more and more desperate by the hour as FE Week continues to receive pleas from apparent learners seeking advice on their missing logbooks, portfolios, qualifications and payments.

To this end, FE Week has ensured learners have the contact details of the relevant awarding organisations, and Ofqual has also provided details of a helpline.

But it remains a terrible position for learners to find themselves in and one that will damage the good name of the sector.

Chris Henwood, FE Week editor

 

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

22 Comments

  1. What do I think, well Chris I think you noted all there is to note, however as always the person who does not get involved is the SFA they say they look after the learners? They paid the funds out at the start of the point what about all the red tape of the Registrar of training Providers.

    Then what about the Ofsted (being learner centered) stance. Again the industry suffers both in name and by complication of lets all run for the hills screw the staff and screw the learners and indeed the employers.
    All now have a feeling of being duped and again we see that people are left in the lurch.

  2. lindsay

    Bright 2 weeks ago were sending out emails stating that it had 5000 learners to reg on it system. Once on the system the Awarding bodies would be notified who was reg with them and the learners would also find out who the awarding the were signed with.

    App4england had been receiving requests for help from learners who in some cases have paid thousands of pounds for courses who have felt like they have had no body they could turn to for help.

    What should the sector have in place to help people caught up in a situation like BRIGHT

    T

    T

  3. This story brings out the importance of the role of external verifiers in assuring the quality of assessment. Awarding bodies should not just be a ‘rubber stamping’ job if you pay them fees. They are supposed to be responsible so that if an employer takes someone on with one of their qualifications the employer can be sure they have reached a particular standard. It is the reason I wanted to see an independent ‘whistleblowing’ hotline set up as a recommendation from ‘Ensuring Quality in Apprenticeships’. At the moment neither employers or apprentices can make their concerns about the quality of training or assessment easily known. When external verifiers approved and visited the provider that is the subject of this piece, what did they see or has the process become mechanical and unchallenging? In two years time, if funding is going through small employers for apprentices, just how much more poor practice will be commonplace as the ability of awarding bodies and Ofsted to assure quality becomes more and more stretched and ineffective? The basic principle of inspection is to ‘follow the money’. Interesting times ahead that go against the SFA mantra of only financing directly above that half a million benchmark.

  4. James Smith

    I’ve all but given up on ever getting my certificate or a refund from this tin pot firm. They are not answering any of their phones. I’ve contacted Barclaycard to get a refund on my last payment of £135. I’d tell them to go to hell, but I think that their already there….

  5. Stephen Urquhart

    I find it interesting to note that currently on the bright assessing (dot) com website they clearly state (copied verbatim) … ‘Bright International Training’s courses meet the highest industry standards of Ofsted and are accredited by awarding bodies OCR and Highfield.’ This was access at 22:36 on Friday 9th May 2014. I feel that the website needs to be amended as it appears to infer that qualification certificates are available via Bright Assessing for both awarding bodies?

      • Stephen Urquhart

        Yes Lone Ranger it is me, the more I have investigated my course portfolio pack and the errors of work to be completed the more I have found that I have not completed the necessary work to achieve, this included evidenced removed. I have also contacted NCFE with a comprehensive email about the inaccuracies within the portfolio, on a page by page basis, including no EQA signatures, and the work I completed. I have also queried the PTLLS qualification I undertook with them.

        I am in the process of contacting Bright to inform them to remove my case study as I cannot in good conscience recommend them. Frankly I feel very let down by them and the fact that it looks very likely that I and my colleagues on the same course will be having the qualifications withdrawn due to insufficient evidence produced or can be verified.

  6. lindsay

    Now it has started learners finding out qualifications are not valid, taken from linkedin group

    Withdrawal of CAVA NVQ Assessing Qualification by NCFE
    Anthony Barlow

    I have just received a telephone call from NCFE advising me that my Assessing qualification is not valid. They have asked me to return it to them. This was as a result of a four day course which took place in November 2012. It was organised by my Work Programme Provider in Portsmouth, and was funded by the “Skills Funding Agency”.

    One of the reasons given was that even on my “refresher course” in January 2014; there was insufficient “Work Product” evidence. A full report will be sent to me in due course by the External Moderator. They are notifying their contact at Bright, in addition to OFQUAL and the “Skills Funding Agency”.

    What happens next I have no idea? All NCFE can tell me is that they will send me a list of other centres running the course. However they are unsure whether the “Skills Funding Agency” will be able to fund it for me. Ironically after all this time I have an interview next week for an Assessor’s job!

    • Laurence

      Dear Lindsay

      There is another point you need to think about. People have gone ahead with the Bright International courses in “utmost good faith” (legal terminology uberrimae fidae). People have undertaken expenses and even used their new qualification on their CV in order to apply for jobs. Can these authorising bodies retrospectively and legally withdraw qualifications? It might take a court case to verify the positions of the awarding bodies, with claims for these out of pocket expenses.

      I may be in a unique situation in that I have subsequently obtained a masters qualification at level 7. How can it be logical that I am now qualified to assess at level 7 but my level 3 qualification has been withdrawn?

  7. Janet

    There are people from rival training companies who are trying too hard to be the peoples champion, and be the centre of attention. I’ll find this out, I’ll find that out and then post it. They should stick to running their own business, and stop trying to use their position to lead a group of learners when they are not personally involved. Leave it to the learners themselves. At least the two A’s and D were learners.

  8. lindsay

    HABC statement on Bright International Ltd – Putting the Record Straight
    Posted on May 13, 2014 by Press Office
    In response to the article in FE Week on 8 May 2014, ‘Who will certificate Bright?’, we believe there are a number of inaccuracies in the statement from Bright International Ltd (‘Bright’) Chief Executive Ms Krissy Charles-Jones that HABC cannot allow to go unchallenged.

    Ms Charles-Jones states that Bright was ‘never approved or used by Highfields and I didn’t ever sign any application or agreement to do so’.

    In relation to the first part of this statement; this is untrue. Bright submitted an application form for Approved Centre status to HABC on 4 September 2013 and signed a declaration (constituting a formal legal contract) on 4 September 2013. HABC subsequently communicated to Bright that its HABC Centre Approval application had been successful.

    Notwithstanding the fact HABC has asked Bright to remove our logo and references to our organisation from its website on several occasions, as of 13 May 2014, the Bright website incorrectly states that they are ‘accredited‘ by Highfield. This is clearly at odds with the statement by Ms Krissy Charles-Jones.

    The second part of the statement is also misleading. Although the declaration was signed by Bright’s Head of Training and Quality rather than Ms Charles-Jones personally, we would expect Ms Charles-Jones, as Chief Executive of Bright and the person ultimately in charge, to be accountable for any agreement signed by her staff in good faith with HABC.Further, it is clear from our correspondence with Ms Charles-Jones that she was aware that the declaration had been signed on behalf of Bright.

    The statement from Bright further says, ‘they approached us to work with us but we decided not to do so’. Again, this is not the case. One of our Business Development Managers was approached by Bright’s then Head of Training and Quality in July 2013.

    It was this approach (by Bright) that led to the application for Approved Centre status being made and the declaration being signed on 4 September 2013.

    Finally, Bright’s statement says, ‘We have never done any learning or registrations through them’.

    This part of the statement is accurate. HABC suspended Bright in December 2013 after we were notified by NCFE regarding the problems they had discovered. This was before any candidates were registered and before courses were delivered, and most importantly, before any learners could potentially be affected.

    Since Bright’s suspension, HABC has received written communications and telephone calls from Ms Charles-Jones and other members of Bright, expressing a clear interest in working with HABC in the future.

    However, HABC has now taken the decision to permanently terminate the Approved Centre status of Bright. We will not therefore work in any capacity with Bright or Ms Charles-Jones in the future.

    We are disappointed by the actions of Bright and have contacted them directly after seeing the article in FE Week to express our concerns. Having received no satisfactory response, we feel we have no option but to release our own statement to the press and will be considering what further action may be taken.

  9. Tom Daley

    Why are you only reporting the negatives about Bright and not letting them and their supporters defend these comments?

    Put up balanced comments or I will have no choice but to look into you and how far your relationships go with the NCFE – and no, this is not KCJ. I will also ask questions about you on other social medium and make sure I’m heard just like Andrea Price has – I won’t give up. Let’s hope you post this and my other comment you decided not to post which was entirely honest and fair and above all factual.

  10. Miles Farther

    This whole affair is a disgrace and portrays the sector in a very poor light. Surely the government have got to act and make an example of this company and their Directors? The ‘he said’ and ‘she said’ commentary surrounding this case is really unsavoury. If fraud is suspected, an SFA and Police investigation MUST ensue. This is public money! Our money!!

  11. I signed up with bright a year ago to complete my ctlls course with them. iv paid £830 !!!did not know ANYTHING about this mess till last week. Now its all over the internet.im disgusted ,disappointed and upset aswell as much worse off financially. I will never do any qualifications anywhere but college from now on. This is what im in the process of deciding if I have the heart to pay again and go back to PROPER college in September.
    ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED !!! anyone know if and how to claim any money back please?

    • wikky 26

      Im in the same situation Lisa ….How terrible for this just to be put upon us!… if you find out any info could you please let me know….i cant get in touch with anyone about it ;.( ill do the same if i hear anything.

    • Laurence

      Dear Lisa

      Take the awarding bodies to court. See my comments above in reply to Lindsay. Maybe a joint effort by everybody, we cannot do this individually. I truly sympathise with your financial loss. We have all undergone expenses, but all is not lost yet.

  12. wikky 26

    I brought my course in 2012 but never started or completed but was made to pay for it at the time … Will i be refunded? I should be under Duty of Care by NCFE shouldnt I?