Can't see the wood for the trees? You need our free industry newswire
Cee-Mac in administration
Northampton-based provider Cee-Mac have gone into administration today and made all staff redundant. Cee-Mac hold a number of LSC contracts, but their main DWP contract is the Norfolk ESF prime contract from last year's bid round.
There are some complexities to the story, though. It appears that the DWP contract has been transferred by the DWP from the company in administration, CeeMac Projects (UK) Ltd, to its still-solvent parent company, CeeMac Ltd. This means that the contract is theoretically still live.
Since the parent company is a holding company only, the contract would now belong to a company with no delivery staff, no previous contracts delivery, and the same managers who led the previous company into administration with debts of hundreds of thousands of pounds owed to the LSC. It also appears to ignore TUPE obligations that come with the contract transfer.
I'll update this story as more comes in, but feel free to comment or get in touch if you have more information.
Comments
Up until today, I was employed at CeeMac in position of Business Development Manager and actually wrote the DWP tender - I hasten to add that I was in no way involved in delivery and am not one of the management team mentioned!
The company did owe the LSC a large amount of money following a £600k + payment made to the company but never earned. They also had several hundred Train to Gain learners on their books for whom they had again been paid but not put the capacity in place to deliver to.
It was this financial position and failure to build capacity, combined with a grade 4 Ofsted inspection, that tipped the company over the edge.
UP until Monday 24th i too was an employee. I too have just found out that "Ceemac" is still doing business with Public funding.
I am sorry but these 2 company owners/Directors should not be legally allowed anywhere near public funds again.
While around 25 staff were made redundant with no severance pay, redundancy pay, holiday entitlement etc. They are allowed to keep on trading.
Could i also state it was the 2 company Directors who led us all to the fateful end - not the Managers.
yours angrily
I understand the panic and fustration and anger that you are feeling. Its true that some of theses if not all the directors are very ruthless and actually yes they should be banned.
What makes me laugh is that this is not the 1st time somthing like this has happened however the dwp dont seem to be taking any firm action against or to prevent it happening again. The action that has been taken up to date has not stopped other providers ruining the deliverance of programmes and actually tainting the sector.
But just to shed some light, there are alot of providers out there that will take you on and with fND round the corner you are in a position where you can decide where you want to go.
I'm hearing rumours about more providers running into trouble. This would fit with the quarterly office rents being due this week. Let me know if you hear anything more on anyone!
Edited to remove phone number. You should get in touch about advertising
I am aware of what has recently happened with Ceemac and if you are looking for advise or employment opportunities (all levels) please contact me on XXXXXXXXXXXX
I would not be too hard on DWP over this. I think they are starting to realise they might have had the wool well and truly pulled over their eyes...
It appears that the poor Ofsted report may not have been disclosed when the request to move the contract was made to DWP. The date accounts were published also suggests that the request might have been made prior to CeeMac releasing these. CeeMac moved another ESF contract with Bedfordshire County Council on the grounds that the existing company was to "focus on LSC work" - it appears they were also not made aware of the January Ofsted report when the request was made by CeeMac in February. The staff who went to the new company included the LSC Train to Gain contract manager - a strange thing to do if you were trying to allow the old company to focus on LSC work. The people who lost jobs included the contract manager and other staff responsible for the efforts that led to recent improvements in DWP contract performance - I assume one of DWP justifications for allowing the contract to be moved.
Seems they set the entire thing up - I am also aware that they purchased a company car (used by a member of staff they were taking with them) from the failing company in advance of deciding, out of the blue, to go into administration. They must also have copied all the DWP client info from their server and moved the files etc.
All this happened while the MD was telling staff he was working hard to save the company! He simply turned up on Monday, made everyone redundant, then drove to his new offices a few miles away to work on the DWP contract... the other director actually turned up in a new car to shut the company down!
I do not feel that LSC, DWP etc ought to be overly criticised but do hope that the two agencies can work together a little more closely to avoid these situations - simple exchange of information would have stopped this happening.
Appears that CeeMac are planning to tender for more DWP contracts, something I certainly will not be supporting them in developing.
Their in house delivery capacity (1 person) also appears to have refused to take up an offer of employment with the new company... and several subcontractors (Charities) who worked for the previous company (and one would assume were owed money) are reconsidering their position.
Hi Sak - how do i get in touch with you, i am in need of work now - as are a few others.
Please advise
It will be interesting to see what happens to their Norfolk DWP-ESF contract.
This has been a bit of a mystery with previous provider administrations as contracts have seemingly been put up for sale by administrators or 'novated' by DWP to another provider they feel can fill the gap.
I always thought they'd have to go back out to OCT but Instant Muscle and Carter Carter's contracts were never re-tendered to my knowledge.
In the current climate it is a tragic irony that CeeMac employees, who can help people find work, are joining the rising ranks of unemploment themselves. Let's hope DWP finds a quick solution for them and their customers.
Hey there anonymous. There are many employment agencies that can help, and your skills are going to be in huge demand in the coming months. It may not seem that way now, but the industry is going through a massive expansion between now and Christmas.
Unfortunately, Sak ran up against the only major barrier there is here - the only way this site can exist is by charging recruiters to advertise. You're welcome to put your CV on the site, and I would suggest that Sak gets in touch with me sharpish. Good luck with your jobsearch!
Instant Muscle's contracts were forfeit as they stopped delivery and went under, and the DWP managed a transfer without tendering, which they're allowed to do in emergencies. In the past, the DWP have transferred EZ contracts between providers due to underperformance or fraud, also without retendering.
The Carter & Carter example was different, as different parts of the business were kept alive and sold on to Newcastle College and other organisations by the administrators.
As an ex employee who worked on the DWP contract that CeeMac held I dont believe for one minute that DWP or the LSC are at fault.
Its the Dircetors who have learnt the current systems weaknesses and exploited it for every penny they could.
I am horrified how they seem to have got away with the misuse of government money. But I believe that the DWP and the LSC will learn from these mistakes, and must take some form of action agaisnt the two Directors of CeeMac Ltd/CeeMac Connects/CeeMac Projects Ltd/Fill Gaps.
Also when the directors did move the contract to the different company, no staff memeber was informed of this-something that maybe can be proved wrong under TUPEs.
But its good to see that this isnt going un-noticed by people within this sector.
Thanks
I have worked very closely with staff at Ceemac and I am horrified the way this whole incident has been dealt with. Knowing one of the directors I always found him to be honest and trustworthy, how wrong I was. They should not get away with this, but unfortuntely my husband is an IP and every day company's are doing the same and leaving employee's in the lurch, more should be done to protect employee's against caluclated directors like this, because once the creditor's meeting is over, they will just brush themselves down, drive there new cars and carry on. IT IS WRONG.
I may have to see if I can get hold of either of the directors to respond to this at some point. Right now it's all feeling a bit like Watchdog jumping up and down on a dodgy central heating installer, but without the installer being allowed to give their own side. Sadly I can't get in touch with them - their phone lines were cut on Monday when the company was wound up.
info [at] ceemac [dot] co [dot] uk
I do not agree that DWP or LSC are not accountable in any way. What about all the monitoring that is meant to be carried out, DWP and LSC audits should not be relying on Ofsted for contract compliance. All tenders require current accounts to be sent and they are scrutinised (supposedly) May I suggest that there is more to open and competitive tendering than most honest providers are party to
I was around during contracting process on this contract when CeeMac originally won it and can state that DWP's Finance Manager did have questions over ability to bankroll the required capacity (never put in place as detailed in the tender)... I think he was reassured by the bank balance at the time (mainly LSC overpayment that ought to have gone back prior to that anyway but was presented as a confidence giver) and the fact that CeeMac had other LSC contracts running to demonstrate potential turnover and therefore less reliance on DWP turnover...
What I cannot understand is why they were then reassured by the accounts of a dormant company with NO other contracts active at that time and almost total reliance on the DWP contract income - the only other income the "dormant" company had was the £13k or so monthly "management" fee (complementing many hundreds of thousands of pounds in dividends/salary/directors loans drained from CeeMac during the period of LSC underperformance) charged by CeeMac Ltd to CeeMac Projects for the directors leadership towards an Ofsted Grade 4 for Leadership and Management...
I am also aware that a charity working on the DWP project (ok, in fact delivering the bulk of activity to date for a fraction of the money paid to CeeMac) was left with numerous unpaid bills for a large amount of money but has been asked to work under the new contract... now I know Gordon Brown wants the 3rd sector more involved in service delivery but he surely did not mean at a loss?
If above Central Heating Installer took payment from your brother (LSC) and did not complete the work, then had a bad quality report from Corgi (Ofsted), why would you (DWP) then let him convince you that he (CeeMac) ought to be allowed to even bleed your radiators, let alone replace your boiler?
I would not begrudge these guys the Aston Martin Vantage, Mercedes x 2, BMW, Landrover x 2, Jaguar, Range Rover Sport etc that they have gone through in the last year or so if they had actually made a serious attempt to deliver anything other than smoke and mirrors...
I know there are a lot of GOOD providers out there who make an honest profit (it is not a dirty word) and just hope that DWP might take the hint and ensure that our industry is not put in danger by a greedy few... we are after all taxpayers and it is OUR money!
I am yet another disgruntled employee of the company!
I agree with all of the statements above completely, I was not at a senior level and not in any way priviledge to the financial and contractual movements! However, I could see that the way in which the company declined once the money from DWP contracts started rolling in! Once upon a time our directors were actively involved and singing from the same hymn sheet as it were! How quick the decline!
We had 3 directors and a senior management team that could never agree the way forward at meetings due to the stubborn ways of 2 greedy directors who "knew it all", they truly believed they could bluff their way through meetings with JCP, I had informal conversations with these JCP managers and they were totally disillusioned by the mentality and "whatever attitude" towards contracts! This was detrimental to the team i worked with who were very passionate about delivering!!
Monday came as no surprise to the staff, however Tuesday did to most! It seems the Directors decided to keep on the "yes" men! This totally describes the culture of CeeMac, the staff that have since been made redundant are the only ones who would challenge the poor decisions made by the directors! Need I say more, the company achieved a fabulous grade 4 for leadership and management, and hence will do again if they get to the next inspection!!! No one in their company will dare challenge!!
Here are a few lines from the Ofsted report that explain why the above ex employees feel so strongly about these individuals being allowed to continue working with public money:
Weak selection and management of subcontractors.
Inadequate provision of advice and guidance.
CeeMac has an inadequate capacity to improve.
Inadequate systematic quality improvement.
Inadequate safeguarding arrangements.
Inadequate promotion and monitoring of equality of opportunity (One director frequently used the catch all term "Black One Eyed Lesbians" to describe disadvantaged groups).
Senior managers monitor the recruitment of learners and the business aspects of the contract effectively but give too little attention to the quality of provision and the learners’ experience during training.
CeeMac does not adequately monitor or focus sufficiently on improving the quality of the learners’ experience, particularly where their experience is known to be inadequate.
Procedures for safeguarding learners do not meet current government requirements.
No procedures are in place to background check staff.
No systematic quality assurance processes exist.
While the report obviously focuses on the old CeeMac rather than the new, the directors lack of leadership and capacity to improve evidenced in the report does not bode well for individuals engaged on future programmes.
Edited 30/3 - I'm going to reply to this in the post itself
I am confused Daniel - why havent you closed this discussion down as disgruntled employees bash Ceemac? Why not tell these posters to open up a new discussion. You did when people were expressing their opinion on Reed and how they felt they had been treated during the recent consultation and beyond.
The Reed discussion strayed off-topic and devolved into general criticisms of the company culture and personality. The Cee-Mac discussion is generating new information from people associated with the company who believe that it engaged in borderline fraudulent activity. It's a live story that is actually happening on the site.
Surely the depth of opinion against Reed even by those not negatively effected by the recent consultations should be aired freely? [content removed]
In the past year and a half I've heard or read deeply negative opinions about Reed, A4e, WorkDirections, Shaw Trust, Working Links and Intraining among others. In other words, every large provider has its detractors. My issue with these conversations is that, unchecked, they swamp everything else on the site and kill all other discussion. Additionally, it's very difficult to be confident in the picture that emerges from them, without developing a reasonably reliable ranking system. I'm open to suggestions on how to leave the site open for this kind of feedback in a way that doesn't detract from everything else and ultimately kill off the discussion. I think the way forward involves creating something very clearly separated from the main site discussions.
Btw I heard they won 3 so the bad mouthing on here isnt damaging their ability to win which is all they care about
I've commented elsewhere on the site that without hard evidence, I'm treating these rumours as guesswork. The rumours I've heard are too frequently untrue.
Just to jump in on this one, please don't close down this thread - it is clear that employees, the public and subcontractors have been treated shamefully and there are plenty of posts on here which provide the evidence for it. Once again, public funds have been used to pay for luxury lifestyles rather than provide anything like a service, it smacks of RBS all over again, and DWP should be ashamed of themselves for not monitoring this situation more closely. Having looked at the PQQ for the recent tendering rounds on behalf of a third sector organisation, it 'appears' that DWP are hot on monitoring financial capability - is this now just a euphemistic way of ensuring that only the same providers win contracts? As it would appear that financial monitoring is not really something DWP want to muddy their hands with.
On another note, as there are significant job-losses in the welfare to work sector now, wouldn't it be useful if there was a section on this website to share experiences regarding finding work? Apologies if there is already and I have missed it!!
Update 29/3 - I've looked through the comments to this article briefly. There's so much content here that it's going to take me a while to filter through it properly, so if you see something specific you have suggestions about then get in touch. I would add that I've extended the normal limits of criticism for this article, as the comments do seem to be adding to the picture in a meaningful, if very negative way. I'll also be trying to get in touch with the directors of the company to put the various allegations to them, as well as one or two of their partner organisations.
If you need help getting in contact with either the Directors or subcontractors Daniel, Im sure there are alot of people who have posted on this site who can point you to the right people.
-But it is good you are looking into this, and I would love to hear what the Directors reply is.
like others on this page I was an employee of CeeMac Projects (Uk) Ltd until 24th March.Unlike others I was in name a Director,non share holding,and in practice had little more input to the strategic thinking and processes than any other employee. I was certainly unaware of the thinking and moves that went on prior to the 24th and no knowledge of the transfer of DWP contract.
More fortuneate than most in that I am drawing towards the end of my working life and am probable better placed financially, I nevertheless empathise strongly with the views expressed on this page anmd will do all I can to help ex-colleagues with advice and or personal references if they would find that helpful. I'm abroad at the moment but will be back in UK on Thursdya 2 April, Stuart Norey has my contact details so please get in touch if you want.
I wish you all the very best and every success in finding new employment.
I am one of the unfortunate clients completing an NVQ with CEEMAC. Where do i go to try and continue my studies to gain my certificate? I had 3 assessors during an 8 month period. They kept leaving and weeks would go by before i knew they had left and then had to wait for a time to find another assessor. This is completely frustrating for learners as well. Shame on you CEEMAC.
As an ex employee - I agree with most points above concerning the continued business and growth of the remaining 2 directors of CeeMac. I would also like to point out that I (along with many others - until the OFSTED inspection dates were revealed) did not have a contract or a job description and fail to see how the company gained quality marks such as Matrix. I now face a lengthy process of trying to find similar employment with a 'reference' from a company who were graded 4 by OFSTED and have abused their position and government funding continuously. As for the unfortunate learner above, please contact any training provider or FE College who hold a 'Train 2 Gain' contract and you should be allowed to simply continue with your quaification without having to start afresh. Good luck to you.
i work for reed and I dont have a job description. - they tell me its not a legal requirement.
In reply to the disgruntled learner I have spoken to the Northamptonshire LSC contracts team today and they are currently working through learning plans in order to identify learners, sub-contractors etc and sort arrangements for the completion of learning. This may take a little while, I am not sure how many learners are involved, but you should be able to complete.
In reply to working for reed with no job description, I was working for them and it took them well, 6 months to get a job description to me and when I recieved it, it was cut and paste that made up the role. You are correct, it is not a legal requirement for you to have a job description in fact if your job crosses over into anothers' juristiction then you could you could use part of their JD as yours. Just in case you ever need to know why you were employed by them and what you were supposed to be doing.
Cee mac, Instant Muscle, Maatwerk, Carter and Carter ect...........
Could you confirm what their staus was at time of going under ie, Prime, SPV, Managing Agent. Also could you confirm if the organisations that took over these contracts actually went through a formal open re-tender for these contracts or not, also what are the status for these new contract holders? Hopefully the DWP can forward this info!
What about XXXXXXX, a few fair stories (rumours generated by actual DWP end users them selves), that allege that they have been told not to attend more than 2 days a week, as XXXXXXX cannot refund their travel fares for the full 5 days a week as they have got a severe cash flow problem? How ridiculous, unemployed people are out there desparate to improve their chances of securing gainfull employment, and yet there aaccessability to acheive this is automatically handicapped by 60% - unbelieveable!!!!!!!!!!
Edited 8/4 - goodness, it's getting a bit free with the throwing around of rumours against named companies here. Get better evidence first then get in touch if you want to write this sort of thing.
Re: the organisation status question. You keep asking this in different bits of the website. Log in and start a discussion topic if it's so important. None of the organisations you mention retendered, but note that Maatwerk did not go under. It was bought by Rescare, who had the bad luck to pick it up just before fraud in Manchester made Maatwerk's name rather less useful.
Daniel,
I also know about the company XXX, and because a lot of dwp end users have been effected by this situation since approx the beginning of 2009. By now the JCP that they all sign with must be inundated with complaints about this on-going situation.
I only know about one branch in particular, I do not know if it is systemic throughout the whole company. Hopefully the JCP staff will have forwarded the complaints to the JCP manager and the district JCP manager, and I am sure that they will take appropriate action.
Another reason why possibly many have not bothered to pursue the matter, is because they are just so fed up anyway with the credit crunch in general, and that they may rightly or wrongly believe nothing will happen, especially after hearing about the A4E complaint made in i think 2004 on the bbc radio programme, we are now in 2009 and still nothing has been done by that customers JCP or the DWP about that original complaint, even though there are now additional new and current complaints that were discussed about A4E on the bbc programme last Sunday.........
Is XXX definitely the same company? Contact me using the contact facility if so, and I'll investigate further.
Also in this thread: Vin Diesel action films
Maatwerk brought by the Rescare group went into liquidation on 05/01/09 and was not integrated into Rescare Biscom rebrand People serve.
Your information checks out - they did indeed go into voluntary liquidation on 5th January. That must rank as the worst deal in the welfare-to-work industry in recent times. Also slightly confusing as I still have a number of Maatwerk-based subscribers.
I am a caterer who provided buffets for training sessions run by ceemac. Perhaps one of the bent directors could pay me what he owes me.But more to the point pay me the anount that he can still afford to pay me, but I can't afford to lose.
An FoI request concerning the transfer of the DWP ESF Norfolk contract out of CeeMac into a separate company follows:
Where are Ceemac or ceemac ltd -or even possibly a new name they are operating under- Operating from now address wise. .
Post new comment