Approved centres have received an email form JAUPT headed Response to Unauthorised Communication, and in fairness it may have been inappropriate of us to call our communication alt-JAUPT Newsletter, nevertheless I stand by the accuracy of the content of my last blog, our genuine desire to help others and to have free dialog. Below is my response to JAUPT.
Please feel free to comment.
Dear Abbey and Sarah
Like other approved centres we have received your email, 'Response to Unauthorised Communication.'
I'm sure that you are aware that the email to which you refer was sent by us, Pride Training UK Ltd, AC00005. It was not our intention to suggest that the email was an authorised communication from JAUPT. It was an alternative newsletter intended to highlight the positive changes and encourage centres to read our blog. In hindsight it may have been inappropriate to call the communication 'Alt-JAUPT', however we stand by the accuracy within the blog and our integrity of our motives. Very many centres have contacted us expressing value in the communication.
For a number of months the Registration Form example on the JAUPT website, which was used by JAUPT auditors, was at variance to the example and requirements on GOV.UK. A number of our customers received Advisory Notices following unannounced course visits, as their registration form didn't contain the employer's name. Following email exchanges and a telephone conversation with Sarah Wingate this requirement has been removed and the registration form revised. Our blog provided links to GOV.UK for reference and a link for centres to download a more useable registration form that contained all the requirements, and space for other information.
Additional Training Material
DVSA, and JAUPT as their agent, can ask for sight of the course material, but as all centres know this is not standard practice. Pride has recently supplied JAUPT with copies of our material, but these were supplied freely, without request, to assist the approvals process as we supply material to many other centres. The reference to using additional material was a direct quote from GOV.UK and we also supplied a link as confirmation.
With the greatest respect there is a notable difference between your comment, DVSA's guidance, and current thinking. In our blog we highlighted the move to a more sensible approach and directly quoted from GOV.UK.
"You should check the knowledge of delegates at the start of the course to work out which sections you might need to spend more time on. This could mean you reduce the time spent on other sections."
Certificate of Attendance
The JAUPT March Newsletter 2016 did mention changes to GOV.UK, but the addition on the requirement to include www.gov.uk/checkdrivercpc was not referred to directly, and was missed by our customers and centres that have contacted us. Again we supplied a link to GOV.UK.
Retention of course attendance records
Thank you for confirming that these records only have to be retained for six years. I must draw your attention to GOV.UK, which clearly states seven.
Steve @ Pride