Exclusive: Agency clears Elmfield Training of falsely claiming for learners on Morrisons apprentice scheme in a two page report following a six month investigation

A Skills Funding Agency (SFA) investigation has ruled that defunct training provider Elmfield did not receive funding it was not entitled to for Morrisons apprenticeships.

A BBC Newsnight probe screened in October last year, supported with information uncovered by FE Week, raised questions about Elmfield’s dealings with workers at supermarket giant Morrisons.

It was alleged Elmfield signed Morrisons staff up to apprenticeship programmes they had declined, enabling the provider to claim public funding for training.

A separate probe was launched around six months ago by the SFA and its findings are finally set to be published tomorrow morning.

However, FE Week has already seen a copy of the two page report.

It concluded: “Some of the actions taken by Elmfield indicate weaknesses in their controls and were not good practice.

“However, the actions did not result in Elmfield receiving any funding to which they were not entitled.”

The SFA looked into allegations that Elmfield had placed thousands of learners on apprenticeships knowing they did not want to be on them.

It also checked out claims that paperwork relating to apprenticeships were destroyed and start dates backdated.

The report noted that in January 2011 around 4,500 learners were placed on apprenticeship programmes by Elmfield “without a clear agreement from the learners that this was what they wanted to do”.

But it said: “Elmfield worked with all learners over a period of several months and by the end of May 2011 had identified learners who definitely did not want to do the apprenticeship.

“As a result, Elmfield made an adjustment to the data they submitted to the agency which then resulted in a reduction in funding.”

The report also stated that in November 2011 a group of 1,700 learners were placed on apprenticeships without “clear agreement”.

The report stated: “The action was taken without the knowledge of Morrisons or the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) at the time, although it was supplied retrospectively by NAS and administered by the agency.

“Elmfield worked with these learners over the period to March 2012 and then made adjustments to the data to reflect the learners’ preferences.

“The agency’s audit of 2011/12 provision confirmed that Elmfield did not receive any funding for key skills qualifications for learners who did not wish to undertake this element of an apprenticeship.”

Another accusation was that Elmfield staff used codes to hide the fact that learners did not want to do apprenticeships.

The report confirmed codes were used on paperwork from January to May 2011.

But it added: “The codes were used to describe the stage that a learner was at within a well-documented process rather than being a deliberate attempt to hide their preferences. There is no evidence that learners’ preferences were not followed.”

The report also confirmed that paperwork was changed when learners changed their mind about whether they wanted to do an apprenticeship.

But it said: “Changing paperwork with the agreement of the learner to properly reflect the learning being undertaken is allowed within the agency’s rules.

“There is no evidence that paperwork was changed without the agreement of the learner.”

It was also confirmed that Elmfield staff removed paperwork relating to its apprenticeships from Morrisons stores in August 2013, after its contract with the supermarket chain was terminated.

But the report said while paperwork was “either archived or destroyed”, there was no evidence “paperwork required by the agency to support Elmfield’s funding claims was destroyed”.

In response to accusations that start dates were backdated, it added:  “Elmfield took the action to record start dates in June [2010] to align with Morrisons planned roll-out of apprenticeships across their stores.

“Over 90 per cent of the affected learners completed and achieved their apprenticeship.

“The start dates should have been more accurately recorded but there was no impact on the funding that Elmfield received.”

Elmfield went into administration in November last year owing £11m. It was in debt to more than 180 firms.

Adrian Bailey, chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills select committee, called for the findings to be made public after FE Week revealed the SFA investigation had been concluded three weeks ago.

After being shown the report ahead of a committee meeting with Skills Minister Matthew Hancock this morning (Tuesday), he said: “I will have to discuss the findings with my colleagues before deciding how to go forward.”

A spokesperson for Morrisons said: “We don’t have any comment this late in the evening other than to say that we’ll look more closely at the report tomorrow and we are now using a different provider.”

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply to Peter Cobrin Cancel reply

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

7 Comments

  1. Brian

    So where do we go from here Mr Linford, FE Week, Panoroma, BBC and others, you all publicly slammed this company and Mr Syddall personally for many years claming this and that from so called ‘whistleblowers’ and ran the company out of business in late 2013. So here it is the official report from the SFA that clears Elmfield Training of any wrong doing, will Mr Syddall get an apology from yourselves and the various other media outlets who jumped on the band wagon..I think not! Maybe before you publicly try to string an individual or company up based on here say you should obtain cold hard facts first and present actual evidence. Did you present a story of truth and factual information or did you report on gossip,lies and personal agendas to sell newspapers??? I worked for this company for many years and it was an excellent provider who delivered a high standard of training to its learners and in it’s later years helped to change the lives of unemployed 16-24 year olds but of course non of this was ever reported.

    • Morianna

      Brian, I would like to know where the £11 million went which is owed to the 180 companies. The “whistle-blowers” did not take it, so who did? There are number of staff who to this day are owed salaries and expenses.

  2. Maureen

    Well it just goes to show what happens when the accused investigate themselves. I don’t think there was ever any doubt about what the outcome would be.
    It might have been nice if the SFA actually spoke to any of the Assessors involved, but I suppose that was too much to ask.

    We need to know who did the investigating ? Who they spoke to ? oh and what relationship were they to Ged Sydall.

    This is an absolute farse !!!

  3. Peter Cobrin

    There is a depressing pattern here: disgruntled whistle-blowers, sometimes with a genuine grievance, often with an axe to grind, exposés in the press and on TV, investigations conducted under a cloud of secrecy (and leaks!) and then the verdict. Trouble is by this time, the company in question has gone bust.

    My question in this specific case is simple. Would Elmfield have gone into administration had this investigation not taken place? Alternatively, had this investigation taken place in a timely fashion, without the attendant leaks, and reported its findings would Elmfield have survived? Finally, while the SFA was investigating Elmfield, did it pre-empt its findings by pulling funding, thus forcing the company into administration, only now to effectively find the case unproven?

    My concern, as in other cases like this uis that the processes and procedures of the SFA, various awarding bodies (NCFE?) and other agencies are profoundly flawed. In one case where the directors pursued this, the Courts agreed — too late to save the business!

  4. Perhaps some apology from FE Week?
    Having led a campaign against Elmfield for some time and having been instrumental in forcing them out of business, some editorial response should be forthcoming.
    It is becoming clear that private providers are looked upon as suspect for trying to make a profit. Elmfield could not have grown as quickly as it did without significant support and direction from both NAS and the SFA. How did they monitor what was happening? Surely, FE Week couldn’t have been their only source of information?
    Perhaps an investigation into what is going on inside the SFA is what is called for. There are numerous examples of mismanagement , poor or totally conflicting advice, systems that don’t work and rule changes that their own staff are unaware of, let alone providers.

  5. Morianna

    Elmfield was already on the slippery slopes to administration long before the end of 2012 and early 2013, as they were struggling to make payments. HR also let it slip (in July 2013) that payments to other staff members would be made before administration at the end of October. This coincides with the changing of expenses payments and more staff being made redundant, with many never receiving a penny now they are in administration. The FE Week & Panorama Investigations were again something that happened whilst they were slipping into more and more debt. many good staff still work for the now newly named EQL. But I also feel more and more companies will fall into similar traps and be investigated for alleged malpractice. Elmfield were not the only ones, nor do I feel that FE Week or Panorama will be responsible for bringing them down. They are mearly raising issues and investigate allegations against these companies. Ged did indeed have a vision for training and learners, but somewhere along the line the path became clouded.