'Inadequate’ Hemel training centre plans to take Ofsted to court over rating

A Hemel Hempstead training centre which Ofsted graded “inadequate” has said it “will not take the rating lying down”.

UK Training and Development Limited (UKTD) has enlisted the help of solicitors to challenge the education regulator in the courts, and has said the report is “devoid” of any mention of the coronavirus pandemic. Ofsted gave UKTD an “inadequate” rating after an inspection on July 5 and July 8 this year.

Angela Sandhal, of Duncan Lewis solicitors in London, said: “Our client believes the current inspection findings are part of a pattern of grade four inspections at a time when providers are still in the Covid recovery phase. We have asked Ofsted to provide us with the raw data gathered during the inspection process but so far they have failed to do this.”

UKTD managing director Theresa Wisniewski fears the rating will result in the business losing money from government contracts and schemes.

She said coronavirus had a “significant impact” on the work-based training which UKTD provides, while a Duncan Lewis spokesperson said they know of two other cases in recent months where Ofsted has handed out an “inadequate” rating without considering the effects of the pandemic and the lockdowns introduced in March 2020.

The Ofsted report rated the quality of education, leadership and management, and apprenticeships at UKTD “inadequate” – the lowest rating. The behaviour and attitude and personal development categories were rated as requiring improvement.

One section of the report reads: “Around half of all hair professional apprentices fail to attend compulsory workshops that help them prepare for their final assessments. As a result, too few apprentices are ready for final assessments and around a third fail their first attempt.”

The centre last received a “good” rating in 2012, while a 2019 Ofsted inspection identified the centre as one which “requires improvement”.

An Ofsted spokesperson said: “We don’t comment on complaints relating to individual providers, however, all our inspection reports are subject to a thorough quality assurance process to confirm our findings and judgements prior to publication. All comments and complaints by providers are fully considered as part of that process.”