Worcestershire Trading Standards and Elite Nail and Beauty Academy In this feature | aggrieved learners | acting fraudulently | team effort Beauty schools and trading standards are not usually natural bedfellows, but when one such school failed to register its students for certification, officers in Worcester found themselves investigating a potential fraud, as ian Bell and Simon Wilkes explain I Turfords actions had a huge impact on the lives and future career plans of the victims t was an unusual case for trading standards prosecuting the owner of a beauty-therapy training centre who had failed to register her students for certification, leaving them without qualifications, out of pocket, and unable to seek work in the industry. Worcestershire Trading Standards first became aware of Elite Nail and Beauty Academy in October 2015. The Worcester-based centre had failed to register its students with Vocational Training Charitable Trust (VTCT), the qualification awarding body, whose policy states that learners should be registered within eight weeks of starting a course. Asa result, learners could not claim certificates for the courses for which they had paid and had completed. An initial complaint was received, via the Citizens Advice Consumer Service (CACS), from a learner who had completed a NVQ module course in manicure and pedicure at Elite, starting in September 2014. The course required the learner to attend the training centre regularly, sit formal examinations, and to complete a portfolio of work that was externally verified by VTCT, much like the trading standards qualification framework. However, a year after starting the course and still to receive her certificate, the learner had approached VTCT for guidance. VTCT advised that she was not registered with them and therefore could not claim a certificate for the course she had studied for. When contacted by trading standards, the learner reported she was aware of around 40 other learners who had not received their certificates, despite completing courses with Elite. A check of our in-house recording system identified four further complaints notified by CACS, all of which were of a similar nature to the initial report. At this stage, the relatively small number of complaints did not justify a full-blown investigation; however, the intelligence received from the initial complainant hinted at a much wider problem. Only when VTCT was contacted, did we realise the extent of the issue. The trust confirmed that Kay Turford, trading as Elite Nail and Beauty Academy, had been one of its approved centres, offering a range of beauty and nail courses. However, she had been suspended from registering learners in February 2015, and subsequently suspended from certifying learners in April 2015, over unpaid invoices. A subsequent data protection request to VTCT identified 45 learners who had contacted them about Elite. Unfortunately, many of the people who had contacted VTCT had left no contact details. However, there were sufficient numbers who had left contact details, so we were able to contact these learners and consider them as potential witnesses. Intelligence received from the initial complainant hinted at a much wider problem Team effort Contact with VTCT at this stage was invaluable in understanding how the adult education sector worked in terms of centre approval, course structure, costs, learner registration and certification. A witness statement was obtained from VTCT, clarifying the status of Turfords business as an approved centre, and the period during which she was able to register learners. It was important to obtain the statement from VTCT at this early stage, as subsequent discussions with potential victims highlighted that the majority had signed up for courses with Elite during the period from September 2014 to early 2015, paying between 500 and 2,400 for the privilege. During this period Turford was able to register learners, but had simply failed to do so, despite taking payment. In failing to register the learners with VTCT in line with its terms, she had contravened the requirements of professional diligence and potentially acted fraudulently. THE NEED for VIgILaNCE Statements were also taken from some This is the second case of a body offering students who had started their course after training that Worcestershire has dealt with. this period and, during initial conversations Several years ago, we had a similar case with the victims, it soon became obvious that involving a business offering training to East Turford had not only failed to register them Asian migrants as care assistants in the health with VTCT, but had also repeatedly reassured care sector. them over a period of months and years The impact on these people was even more that everything was fine and that they would dramatic than those in this case because they eventually get their certificates. were travelling thousands of miles for training Turfords actions had a huge impact on the that did not give them the outcomes they lives and future career plans of the victims. wanted but both stories highlight the need for We heard from a number of women who were vigilance in an era where qualifying with a skill to be self-employed, or to run your own business, is looking to get back into work after having becoming the route for more and more people children, and wanted the qualifications to help to earn a living. find employment, and we also heard from school leavers planning to start a career in the beauty industry. Turfords failure to register the learners prevented them from claiming the qualifications they had worked for, which meant they could not seek employment in the sector. A team effort ensured that witness statements were taken from 11 of the victims identified. Without the support of colleagues to get statements in a timely manner, the case could have dragged on and put pressure on statutory time limits. Five officers which is now the majority of our trading standards team in Worcestershire each taking one or two witness statements, were vital in supporting the case officer to get to the point of interview. What went wrong? In an interview with Turford, she confirmed to officers that she had been the owner of Elite during the period that the offences were committed, but could not provide any plausible explanation as to why learners had not been registered. There had been a change of ownership in the business some time between May and September 2015, with a third party taking over during this time. It was very unclear who was responsible for the business in this period and, although apologetic and cooperative, Turford was reticent to talk about this issue during the interview. Turford stated she had experienced problems with previous students dropping out after being registered, but without having paid their course fees. However, all of our witnesses had paid their course fees in full. Turford also stated that she believed the business taking over Elite would deal with the outstanding registrations, but could provide no evidence of this agreement. Turford eventually appeared before Worcester Crown Court on 8 June 2017 where after lengthy discussions between legal representatives for both Turford and Worcestershire County Council she pleaded guilty to 11 offences for contravening the requirements of professional diligence, by failing to register the learners and provide VTCT-branded documents. Although condensed to 11 counts, this still reflected the original offences and ensured our entire prosecution case was given to the court; it also made such complex issues more manageable to deal with. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the full prosecution case was set out to include all of the details of the offending, and a further five offences were admitted as taken into consideration. In sentencing Turford to 12 months in prison suspended for two years, and a further 120 hours of unpaid work Judge Nicholas Cole concluded that this case clearly crossed the custody threshold and it was only because of her guilty plea, lack of previous offending and her personal circumstances that he was able to suspend the prison sentence. In failing to register the learners, Turford had contravened the requirements of professional diligence and potentially acted fraudulently LESSoNS LEarNED CACS is not the only source of the court. The date of discovery for It is also important to make good use of complaints against businesses. In this each witness varied because they were your resources (officers) in cases like this. case, learners chose to complain to the contacted by us at different times. From Detailed witness statements were taken qualification awarding body, because the point we spoke to the first witness, from a number of students and VTCT. It is their main concern was to obtain the clock started ticking on the offence much easier to do this with five officers certification. It is important to understand against them. If we continued to chase each taking one or two statements, that the information provided by CACS too many witness, we ran the risk of than one officer shouldering the whole may not always show the true picture of running out of time on the first witnesses burden a business activities that we took statements from When dealing with large numbers of Additional victims that come forward can Getting an understanding of how the sectors operate helps the investigator potential witnesses, it is important to be used for taken into consideration to understand both the processes remember your statutory time limits (TIC) offences when the case comes to involved and the language used by under the Consumer Protection from court. The additional TIC witnesses in this the professionals in these areas. There Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, there case came forward after the case was were significant differences between is a statutory time limit of three years publicised by the local press, once it had the terminology used around training from the commission of the offence, reached the crown court students in the healthcare field and or one year from the date the offence Building a good working relationship learners in this one is discovered, whichever date is the with organisations such as VTCT earliest. The discovery date time limit that you intend to use as witnesses is what evidence is required at a relatively was the relevant one in this case, so from essential. You are likely to have to return early stage. This case was quite complex the date we discovered an offence had to them a number of times for additional and knowing what was required at the been committed, we had one year to information and statements during the outset would have helped direct the investigate and lay information before investigation investigation better Credits Ian Bell and Simon Wilkes are trading standards officers for Worcestershire Trading Standards. Images: gilaxia To share this page, in the toolbar click on Its prudent to take legal opinion as to You might also like Getting under their skin March 2016