Forum Replies Created
12th Jul 2019 at 11:47 am #71213
Goedkoop indeed Sylvia!
Having specialised in the field of lifting machinery (forklifts and cranes) and dangerous goods for the last 20+ years, I am reluctant to embark on programme development in fields outside my expertise. It is important that a developer has subject matter expertise along with input from other SME’s. When I see these prodigious lists of material available from some of these companies who have only lately popped in the market, I am wary. How did they get a list so long in such a short space of time? Did they develop the material themselves or was it obtained by other means? Do they have the support resources to address issues after purchase?
If you look at some of the companies who have been offering learning materials for say the last 15 years, you can accept that their list of available materials will be long, having been added to year after year. They will also offer (and actually supply) support services following purchase. However, having relocated to Gauteng in 2012, I have had numerous confrontations with a number of these miscreants which involved totally sub standard material or proven plagiarised/stolen material.
In other instances I have heard from providers that, having purchased material, they eventually give up trying to get material amended to SETA requirements and even give up getting a refund. The stress of dealing with constant excuses, time restraints and other factors push providers to literally write off the cost to experience and go elsewhere.
But most certainly, this cannot be the responsibility of SU. Irrespective of where the details of a supplier are obtained, it is the responsibility of the buyer to exercise due caution. Do not be deceived by unreasonably low prices and shop around. It would be interesting if we could get stats on how many providers have been caught like this and just how much money has been lost.
I can personally list 2 big providers and at least 10 small providers who have been ripped off in this manner. Some I could fix, but most come to me too late.
12th Jul 2019 at 11:05 am #71201
Hi Pieter, the Regulation requires that all First Aid training providers must be accredited by a SETA before they will be considered for DoL Approval. This was mainly for DoL Approved training providers who did not have SETA accreditation, and have been given until March 2020 in order to achieve accreditation. This is much the same process as the LMO Approval.
There is not a Regulation that specifies validity periods for First Aid Certificates, this is found in the “APPROVED FIRST AID TRAINING
ORGANISATIONS, INFORMATION BROCHURE NO 2:” which I have attached. The validity period is stated as “may not exceed 3 years from the date of issue.”
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
12th Jul 2019 at 10:54 am #71199
As I recall in one of the SAQA Guidelines, there was a section that related to this topic. The idea was that an unaccredited provider, with perhaps limited resources to achieve their own accreditation, may use a JV/SLA with an accredited provider on provision that the unaccredited provider must fall under the accredited providers QMS. This would mean that the unaccredited provider would be subject to the same requirements as any of the accredited providers employees. Effectively, the responsibility for ensuring the QA of the unaccredited provider would fall on the accredited provider, as Adel has implemented, and will be monitored by the SETA within the normal process of annual audits and verification.
Clearly the unaccredited provider cannot market themselves as “accredited” and would be required to specifically present themselves as subject to the accredited provider. In terms of DHET Registration, the unaccredited provider would not be able to Register, but would be operating under the accredited providers Registration. Once again, the unaccredited provider cannot claim to be Registered by virtue of their relationship with the accredited provider.
Having said that, there are some providers who have entered into agreements that are not as binding or in compliance with the QA arrangement anticipated by SAQA. There are even some trading on other providers accreditation without the accredited providers knowledge. In these scenarios, the provider presents themselves as “accredited” by failing to identify that they are in fact operating under another providers accreditation.
DHET are very clear on accreditation that is awarded to a provider. They only want to see what your company is accredited for. If there is a JV/SLA with another accredited provider, the accreditation belongs to another provider and cannot be submitted for Registration purposes. Any accreditation evidence has to be submitted with the Registration application and accreditation documents reflecting any other name than that of the registered company’s application will be rejected.
12th Jul 2019 at 10:10 am #71198
Hi Sylvia and gang, unfortunately even in this field there are people who lack any realistic values when it comes to “earning” money. We’ve had the same with learning materials and accreditation “experts” whose concern is not for providers, but rather feathering their own pockets by praying on the unsure and less enlightened. Highway robbery of modern times.
Equally unfortunately is the fact that this whole Registration process was poorly implemented with a gross lack of proper communication from the authorities concerned. Even now, some 29 months after the launch of this process, thousands of providers are wondering what to do. To DIY an application by following the official Guideline will lead to a disaster. It is this lack of proper guidance from the authorities that opens the door for the unscrupulous to prey on providers. So essentially it is not a case of complex requirements, it is a case of not disseminating appropriate and correct information down to providers.
It was this very issue that had Lynel and I initiate a service to assist providers. Having carefully reviewed regulations and established exactly what DHET required, when comparing it to the Guideline document made it clear that any DIY was destined for failure.
What also needs to be taken into consideration is that the vast majority of training providers fall in the SMME category, with limited finances and resources. By charging these outlandish fees either precludes these SMME providers from accessing assistance or forces them into using resources they can ill afford.
Incredibly, while trying to address the shady elements in the training environment, this poorly executed Registration process has given the ungodly access to a new field of play.
What Lynel has outlined is appropriate. Providers need to think before falling prey to vultures. There are few who have achieved as much as we did in the early days of Registration, and equally few that were able to interact with DHET to the extent of establishing exactly what they required from providers. It was a little disconcerting that DHET would not permit us to present certain information publicly, as well over a year later their commitment to addressing the communication issues has still not come to light.
As to the comment from DHET that assistance is free of charge from officials of the department, I wonder if the author of that letter has ever tried contacting appropriate officials, whether by phone or email. I believe there are many providers who have given up trying to contact the department, either because they never get a reply or the reply is minimal and not supportive.
28th Feb 2019 at 12:28 pm #69780
For those interested, I am attaching a comment that was requested from TETA regarding the QCTO take over process. Although I focused on the Lifting Machinery training, the same aspects apply to other regulated areas such as First Aid and Convey dangerous goods by road.
Deon, this was requested by TETA who are aware of my significant contact scope within the LMO sector. If you have anything to add, I would welcome any feedback for future dealings on this matter.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.