Ofsted -nominated person and companies!

[Poohshouse]

Just had an answer from Ofsted to my question about completing their new registration spreadsheet thingy. My question was that I am the nominated person for one of our registrations but not the other. They have clarified but added that any nominated person must be a director if its a company. Knew about the changes to the committee and nominated persons (doesn't effect us) but had not seen this before. Those of you that are nominated persons for a company beware, you can't be unless you're a director!

[Poohshouse]

"As from the 1st January 2016, the Nominated Individual must be part of the organisations governing body. For example if the organisation is a company then the Nominated Individual would have to be one of the directors, likewise if it was a committee the Nominated Individual would have to be part of the committee"

[diesel10]

What I would like to know is who decided this rule and for what reason. Does it make a difference really.

[finleysmaid]

well what I would like to know is WHY no one (apart from people on here!) seem to know this information.....who is responsible for giving us this information and where did it come from?

This policy is ridiculous.....that would mean that I could decide my own wages and potentially take over the banking allowing myself to defraud the company??????how can this be correct???????

[Fredbear]

The whole thing is bonkers. I would also like to know how all of this was decided upon.:(

I have our Early Years Advisor coming this week, so I shall be asking her too.

[Guest]

Completed our Registration form updates before Christmas I received a email confirming this then on Monday a follow up email said it was invalid as I was no longer classed as the Nominated Person. I emailed back asking several question, still waiting for a reply

[Poohshouse]

Agree, its not been communicated well at all and is totally stupid. What makes it worse is that I received 2 responses to my initial question, the first saying i needed to provide more security info before they could answer, then an hour later a different one answering the question. That's happened with another email too, 2 different answers sent within an hour of each other, definitely requires improvement!

[lynned55]

Whenever I have emailed Ofsted either to give them or ask them for information I always get back the same stock email telling me they cannot help until I give more security info to them. Drives me mad.

[MegaMum]

My husband says we need to get them judicially reviewed. This is utter nonsense. I agree Poohshouse.... Definitely requires improvement!

[BroadOaks]

It is all to do with Liability. Imagine a company simply chose a random person and made them the nominated person of a nursery. Then something bad happens (god forbid) and who is to blame? it is the nominated person (usually) who holds ultimate responsibility. So the nominated person is possibly sued.. and this leaves the company free to carry on and simply nominate a new person.. the company is therefor not liable and can't be sued. Who has all the assets and value, the company, not the random nominated person of course. Who would be better to sue? lol

 

I wonder how multi chain nurseries are coping with this?

Edited January 21, 2016 by BroadOaks

[MegaMum]

It's not the nominated person that is responsible, where a law suit is concerned but the governing body... i.e. Committee. Although, the lawyers would go for all involved!

[eyfs1966]

"As from the 1st January 2016, the Nominated Individual must be part of the organisations governing body. For example if the organisation is a company then the Nominated Individual would have to be one of the directors, likewise if it was a committee the Nominated Individual would have to be part of the committee"

 

 

Where did you get this? I've not seen this before.

[Fredbear]

That's not what Ofsted have advised me only last week. It is in fact the nominated person that would be liable and could be sued.

How on earth are groups such as ours supposed to encourage parents to join our committee with this huge responsibility.

We do have extra liability cover for our committee that God forbid this ever raised its ugly head.

The new stipulations are in the new Childcare register/ Early years register dated January 2016.

[eyfs1966]

The new stipulations are in the new Childcare register/ Early years register dated January 2016.

Thank you, I hadn't seen it in black and white!

[eyfs1966]

Sorry to be pedantic BUT it talks as shown below about registering on the EYR. Can we argue that we are already registered, not registering? Any thoughts?

 

In addition to the general requirements, other early years providers registering on the early years register must:

 

n where the applicant is a partnership, body corporate, or unincorporated association applying to provide childcare on domestic or non-domestic premises, nominate an individual (‘the nominated individual’) to represent the organisation in its dealings with Ofsted relating to the registration. The nominated individual must be a partner, director, secretary, other officer or member of the governing body of the organisation. The nominated individual may also act as the manager of the provision as long as he or she is a member of the governing body

[BroadOaks]

You can not sue a "company" it is not a person.. only a person can be sued. So people that own or direct a "company" can be sued of course.

 

This is why they want to make the "Nominated Person" to be a part of the "Company" so they can in fact sue somebody or person/people of value.

 

At the end of the day when money is involved and with the "blame culture" we live in, a person/people need to be made responsible and who can stand up in court.

 

So like i hinted previously. These large nursery chains who can have 20 or even more nurseries dotted around - would these need to have Nominated people all directly attached to the Company?

 

EDIT* I just read the above - a Committee from what i can gather are usually Charity, or Incorporated in some way shape or form.. ie a Corporation that includes "responsible people or persons" ie Trustees are the people who would be responsible for a registered charity.. etc etc..

 

There is always somebody within any organisation that is ultimately responsible "the fall guy"

 

So it looks like these changes are being made for future registrations... maybe not current as mentioned above? It is hard to tell?

Edited January 22, 2016 by BroadOaks

[Fredbear]

Hi as I stated in previous posts it does also include registered groups in existence and not just new registrations. This was clarified by a phone call that I made to Ofsted last week.:(

[Poohshouse]

EYFS1966 my quote was taken from an email Ofsted sent me this week, never seen it before either!

[BroadOaks]

I think with regards Parents joining a committee, they will be fine, in regards of worry's of being sued. They will not be financially liable, unless they are a Trustee.. and usually a committee will have 2 or more Trustees' who are appointed at the AGM. (This is from my experience with a charity committee, so i am unsure on other types.)

 

The "nominated person" is ultimately responsible for all aspects of the running of a child care facility, and over the years more and more responsibilities have been mentioned within the Statutory Framework's.. and all leading up to the point that Ofsted can simply have no responsibility, even though they give us Statutory Guidance to follow, that is ultimately set within the rules and laws (well acts or statutes, not laws!) set by Parliament each year.

 

If parliament decide they want to monitor all settings for any reason they see fit.. ie the umbrella "Fundamental British Values" being the latest one.. then Ofsted are the ones to change the rules for us.. and then further put that responsibility onto Settings.. This then covers them, and puts that responsibility onto the Nominated Person via new Statutory Guidance. If for some reason a setting is accused of acting in a way, that causes a case of "bad publicity" in regards to a possible case of "Extremism" being promoted for example.. (whatever that may be) then Ofsted have done their job well.. and the Setting's nominated person is fully responsible for this.. due to being aware of their obligations set out in the statutory guidance.

 

In the case above, then the Committee might be questioned individually.. and they will share the responsibility of course, but if anything financial was to arise.. then the Trustees would be financially liable as i previously mentioned.

 

I'm sorry to ramble on.. but i sometimes feel i need to better explain myself with examples. I also want to make sure i have it right and would like to hear some feedback in regards to my ramblings

Edited January 25, 2016 by BroadOaks

[laura]

Ugh, had an email today to say we definitely need to re-register as we are a limited company.. we were one when we registered originally but I really can't remember there being anything on the paperwork to say so, so now they are saying we have to re-register, new number, can't keep the old ofsted reports and all that paperwork to now complete. I'm honestly not sure where i'm going to magic that time from. Oh and we'll need to pay our ofsted fee again that we only paid in September....

[lynned55]

I have always understood the 'responsible body' (i.e committee/owners) to be the ones taking on the responsibility of anything going/being wrong. With the 'nominated person' being someone (often the manager) who has been nominated to be the 'spokesperson' in dealings with ofsted etc?

[laura]

that's what I thought Lynnned55, but obviously not! my reply today was:

In response to your enquiry despite the provision being operated by yourself as the sole manager/proprietor, if the setting is owned by the limited company XXX ltd then this would require you to re-register.

This can be done by completing and submitting a new EYO and EY2 form(s) accessible from the Ofsted Online website; https://online.ofsted.gov.uk/onlineofsted/default.aspx

For full details of Ofsted’s registration process, please see our How to Apply Page.

I hope you find this information helpful.

[lynned55]

Honestly, this is becoming ridiculous. How are we supposed to get things right when the goalposts are constantly being changed. To add insult to injury we are also supposed to ferret this info out for ourselves! Why on earth do you have to re register

[BroadOaks]

Laura.. that is ridiculous, and is actually quite interesting at the same time.

 

A limited company "a private company whose owners are legally responsible for its debts only to the extent of the amount of capital they invested."

 

(Another theory of mine)

The "Company" is then of value.. and the only value in the company, that the "owners" have are what they invested into it. So again follow the money trail..

 

This totally proves my earlier theory wrong, regarding company's not having any actual value.. although the "company" can not stand up in court, only the directors can. The directors individually, will most likely not have the actual cash available. So in this case, suing the company would be more lucrative. The directors would be forced to raise the full amount, for the lawsuit, if it was ever unfortunately required. And i presume the directors would be the "nominated body" in this case?

 

At the end of the day.. any capable person(s) can be made the "responsible body" but could they be sued for very much in the worse case scenario?

 

i might be thinking too much into it.. but it is usually the money that is the cause.

Edited January 26, 2016 by BroadOaks

[Mouseketeer]

I've now received a newsletter from county to inform us about this latest farce (like we dont already know) but it also says if managers want to join the committee to remain the nominated person you have to do another DBS !

 

Manager : "can I have a pay rise ?"

Manager (wearing committee hat): "yes of course you can, how much do you want" ? ....maybe there is a silver lining :-)

[laura]

Laura.. that is ridiculous, and is actually quite interesting at the same time.

 

A limited company "a private company whose owners are legally responsible for its debts only to the extent of the amount of capital they invested."

 

(Another theory of mine)

The "Company" is then of value.. and the only value in the company, that the "owners" have are what they invested into it. So again follow the money trail..

 

This totally proves my earlier theory wrong, regarding company's not having any actual value.. although the "company" can not stand up in court, only the directors can. The directors individually, will most likely not have the actual cash available. So in this case, suing the company would be more lucrative. The directors would be forced to raise the full amount, for the lawsuit, if it was ever unfortunately required. And i presume the directors would be the "nominated body" in this case?

 

At the end of the day.. any capable person(s) can be made the "responsible body" but could they be sued for very much in the worse case scenario?

 

i might be thinking too much into it.. but it is usually the money that is the cause.

When I emailed them I said that being a limited company was purely due to the financial side of things but they obviously don't think that... just wondering how long I can put off filling the forms in... 6 months takes up to the end of july... I really want a holiday in the summer but know i'm going to be on tenterhooks in case we get the call! if I delay a bit it might take us up to the beginning of September!

[lynned55]

Well, still haven't done mine yet. Actually its still screwed up in bottom of my bag. I may just wait until they contact me again and play their favourite trick Sorry, I dont know what you mean- I havent received it.

[lsp]

I am NOT joining the committee! !!!!! One staff member is a member. I have been informed that at the AGM in the summer, our Treasurer and chair are leaving and our wonderful Treasurer has to leave because she has been on for 10 years. Parents don't give a 'wosit'. I am almost looking forward to telling them we won't be able to open. Maybe ...........

[BroadOaks]

http://eyfs.info/forums/topic/24945-nominatedsuitable-person/

 

A post from 2010 - somebody asking a question regarding Ofsted requiring all Chairpersons to be the Nominated person. Was this ever enforced? Or is this just another one of those things that is "required" but not actually checked?

 

Within the replies is a scanned letter http://eyfs.info/forums/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=10029

 

Hope that works. it looks like they have been asking settings for a few years now???

Edited January 27, 2016 by BroadOaks

[BroadOaks]

Taken this from a 2012 Ofsted factsheet.. and it might help to clear things up.

 

The registered person
Each registered childcare provision has what the law calls a registered person. The registered person can be either one person or an organisation that is responsible overall for the childcare. The registered person is responsible, for making sure the provision keeps to the requirements of the Early Years Register or Childcare Register, any legal regulations and any conditions of registration we impose.
If registered childcare is run by a committee, the committee is the registered person. If we decide to take action against a registered person who fails to meet their legal requirements, this can include taking action against individual committee members of the organisation.

 

The nominated person
We expect all organisations, including committees, to choose one person – the nominated person – to represent the organisation when dealing with us. If the organisation is a committee, we expect a member of the committee to be the nominated person. This prevents us from having to speak to all committee members separately whenever we need to get in touch. The nominated person is responsible for making sure the whole committee knows important information about the registration. However, the committee as a whole will still be responsible for the registration, not the nominated person.

 

 

It would appear back in 2012, at least, that the whole committee would be responsible for the registration. Although it does state that if they decide to take action, it could be against individual committee members?? So it is confusing and might be the reason for this latest change?