If the TEO receives funding that is greater than it should have been, or that it was not entitled to receive, the TEO must treat the amount of the over-funding as a debt due to the Crown that:
a) is repayable on demand; and
b) may be set-off against all or any funding, or any sum of money payable by the TEC to the TEO.
Definition of funding that is greater than it should have been
The extent to which a TEO will have received funding from the Industry Training Fund that was greater than it should have been must be calculated by applying paragraphs (a) to (e) in the order that they appear:
a) if the TEO does not arrange delivery of training during the funding period up to the dollar value for which it has been funded (in that situation, the TEC will separately recover funding for industry trainees, and apprentices, based on the rates of funding that apply); and
b) if the actual average duration of a programme of training exceeds the nominal duration of a programme (over-duration) to the extent of the over-duration; and
c) if an individual industry trainee or apprentice has been enrolled in more than 10 credits in any calendar month at one or more ITOs (monthly over-enrolment), to the extent of the annual over-enrolment; and
d) if an individual industry trainee or apprentice has been enrolled in more than 70 credits over the calendar year, at one or more ITOs (annual over-enrolment), to the extent of the annual over-enrolment; and
e) if less than 80% of the industry trainees and apprentices achieve the minimum of 10 credits where their enrolments were eligible for funding for four months or more in the calendar year (under-achievement), the TEC will deduct funding for each percentage point below 80% up to a maximum of 5.0% of the net funding.
For information about the calculation of ‘over-duration, ‘over-enrolment’ and ‘under-achievement’, refer to the document Standard Training Measures, Learner Counts and Offsets - data definitions and data rules.