QCTO Venue Limitation: Two SDPs Per Training Site?
September 14, 2026
Getting accredited with the QCTO opens the door to recognised, credit-bearing, legal compliance training. But the requirements can be confusing. This checklist simplifies the essentials, from business registration and a compliant QMS to qualified staff, venues, and equipment, helping South African training providers understand exactly what’s needed.
There is ongoing confusion about whether Skills Development Providers (SDPs) can use consultants during the QCTO accreditation process. To cut through the uncertainty, a legal opinion was sought from Marius Stenekamp Attorneys.
After reviewing the QCTO Road to Success policy and discussing common challenges faced by training providers, attorney Marius Stenekamp confirmed the following:
A ban on SDPs using consultants would be legally unsound.
No court would uphold such a prohibition.
This is not a matter of legal complexity, it is common sense.
His advice was simple: SDPs should remain the main point of contact with QCTO or SETAs, but consultants may guide and support the process. Emails should be sent by the provider, with the consultant in cc or bcc where needed.
The Road to Success document mentions consultants only once, on page 16. It does not prohibit their use. Instead, it gives guidance:
The SDP must remain actively engaged in its own accreditation.
Consultants may be used responsibly to provide expertise and support.
Where issues arise is not in the policy itself, but in its misinterpretation or selective enforcement by certain officials.
An SDP, under consultant guidance, emailed QCTO to ask about a delayed application. The QCTO official reprimanded the SDP for copying the consultant, claiming the application would be processed on time.
In reality, the application was not finalised within the promised turnaround. The consultant’s inclusion was legitimate, while accountability for delays was overlooked.
A SETA auditor failed to arrive for a scheduled audit. When the consultant phoned to highlight the mistake, the auditor refused to engage, saying, “You are not allowed to speak to me.” The audit was eventually rescheduled only because of the consultant’s intervention.
In both cases, “no consultants” was used selectively, not as true policy, but as a way to dodge responsibility.
While many audits and applications run smoothly, problems occur when restrictive interpretations of policy are used to avoid accountability.
Consultants do not block communication – they facilitate it.
Selective enforcement undermines trust between providers and regulators.
Accountability should work both ways: SDPs must comply, but QCTO and SETAs should also meet their obligations.
The QCTO’s policy is not the problem. Misinterpretation is. Used correctly, consultants are an asset to the accreditation process.
For SDPs: Accreditation is complex. A competent consultant provides coaching, preparation, and structured support, ensuring the provider becomes more compliant, not less.
For QCTO: Applicants guided by consultants are usually better prepared, which saves time and reduces errors.
For learners: They benefit from training providers that are aligned, compliant, and able to deliver quality programmes.
At the time of writing, there is no ban on consultants in QCTO policy. Ethical and knowledgeable consultants remain an essential ally for training providers seeking accreditation.
👉 Want to get accredited? Start here.