From Newsgroup: rec.sport.rowing

<div>Please ensure you check the guidance carefully to confirm the appropriate method to demonstrate your foundation competence. If you are required to submit a Certificate of Readiness to Enter Specialty Training (CREST) form with your application and do not do so then you will not be offered another opportunity to upload it and your application will not proceed to the next stage of the process.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Please note that making a false declaration in this form will result in any offer of a training post being withdrawn and consideration being given to you being referred to the General Medical Council (GMC).</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>download crest form</div><div></div><div>Download: https://t.co/bp1Z8HgHbH </div><div></div><div></div><div>Hi, I have made my application to Psychiatry and GP this year and found out quite late on in the application window that I needed a 2024 CREST form, so my previous CREST form was invalid. So I contacted a consultant in my previous job (I have been locuming for the past 2 years so no steady placement consultants but this job I locumed at for 7 months so he qualified) and he kindly filled it out and sent it across to me. However as he was in a different city everything was done online and when he sent me the form I was doing an on call so I quickly uploaded without checking super carefully.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I did look and saw the signatures on the bottom of every page and some ticks and this consultant had signed others' CREST forms before mine so I assumed that it was all as it should be. I understand that I should have looked more carefully but as I mentioned time was tight and I was in the middle of an on call shift.</div><div></div><div></div><div>CREST stands for Certificate of Readiness to Enter Speciality Training. This form enables applicants for Speciality Training to demonstrate that they have foundation level competences. For 2023, only the CREST form 2024 will be accepted</div><div></div><div></div><div>To enter speciality training in the UK, applicants must demonstrate that they have a) achieved foundation level competences and have b) completed accepted clinical experience (usually 24 months in total). By completing the CREST form an applicant (who has the necessary clinical experience) can demonstrate that they have achieved foundation competences and apply directly to speciality training.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Yes, an incomplete CREST 2024 form will not be accepted, as you need to demonstrate you have achieved all the foundation competences to be eligible to apply for speciality training. For GP training applicants there is an extended deadline to submit your CREST form. Please go to the GP application website to find these dates and ensure you tick the box for submitting the form at a later date if you need the extended timeline.</div><div></div><div></div><div>No, you may wish to ask senior colleagues to observe you for a competency and ask your signatory to rely on their observations as evidence. Please note their contact details and professional status will need to be filled out in the form to demonstrate that they have witnessed you complete a competency. They may also be contacted to verify they have observed you for a specific area. However, this colleague must be a senior colleague e.g. ST5 or above. A non-senior trainee e.g. FY2 or ST1 will not be accepted even if they have witnessed you achieve a specific competency.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I would suggest that you print out the CREST form in advance and read through each competency. This will enable you to plan how to get each section completed and make the most of opportunities when they arise. All the relevant forms can be found on the ORIEL website.</div><div></div><div></div><div>The City of Crest Hill Places for Eating Tax business community can now take advantage of Localgov, a business-friendly online tax filing & payment platform that offers greater convenience and flexibility to busy entrepreneurs.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>To access Localgov, taxpayers must set up a free account which takes only a few minutes. Then, simply add your businesses, complete the online remittance form for Crest Hill and select a secure payment method, such as ACH, credit, or debit card. Localgov also offers instant confirmation payments and forms have been received.</div><div></div><div></div><div>A completed Health Services entrance form (medical history and physical examination) and an up-to-date immunization record are required to use Health Services. Students who do not provide these documents will be unable to reside in the residence halls.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Ground water contamination at Building No. 1 is assumed to have moved beyond the property boundaries and a 10 year treatment effort is required.</div><div></div><div> The report also indicated that additional subsurface investigation would be necessary to determine the extent of the contamination. The estimated cost for remediation ranged from $900,000 to $1,600,000. Under ECRA, plaintiff was required to conduct an environmental investigation and take any necessary remedial action as a condition of the sale. N.J.S.A. 13:1K-9 (repealed).</div><div></div><div> On December 30, 1986, plaintiff entered into an ACO with the NJDEP. The ACO stated that Crest-Foam "shall initiate, complete, and submit to NJDEP the results from any NJDEP-approved Sampling Plan" and Crest-Foam "shall implement any NJDEP-approved Cleanup Plans in accordance with the approved time schedule or defer implementation of all or part of the Cleanup Plan(s) subject to NJDEP approval...." As part of the ACO, plaintiff was required to provide "financial assurance" in the amount of $1,000,000 subject to amendment upon NJDEP approval of a cleanup plan.</div><div></div><div> Pursuant to the ACO, plaintiff retained First Environment Inc. as its clean-up plan consultants, and submitted a sampling plan to NJDEP for approval. On March 15, 1988, NJDEP issued a conditional approval of the plan. Plaintiff thereafter conducted soil sampling, installed five shallow ground water wells and sampled existing monitoring wells. A report containing ECRA Sampling Plan Results was filed with NJDEP on September 1, 1988. According to the sampling plan report, there was both "soil[] and groundwater" contamination outside two of the buildings. </div><div></div><div> As of May 1996, a "final" clean-up plan for the site had not been approved by NJDEP. In June 1995, NJDEP required plaintiff to analyze whether any contamination had "spread off-site." NJDEP requested further study of the issue before a clean-up plan could be approved. Development of a remediation plan thereafter continued, and cost estimates for cleanup ranged from $2,200,000 to $2,700,000.</div><div></div><div> In the interim plaintiff sought indemnification for the clean-up costs from its insurers. Defendant Hartford had issued four general liability policies covering the period May 1982 to May 1986. Each provided coverage of $1,000,000 for property damage. The basic terms of all four policies are the same, and provided that "the company will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of ... property damage... to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence...." The policies define an "occurrence" as "property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured."</div><div></div><div> Each of the policies also contained a "no action" clause which provided:</div><div></div><div> No action shall lie against the company unless, as a condition precedent thereto, there shall have been full compliance with all of the terms of this policy, nor until the amount of the insured's obligation to pay shall have been finally determined either by judgment against the insured after actual trial or by written agreement of the insured, the claimant and the Company.</div><div></div><div> On September 17, 1991, plaintiff notified Hartford that it was seeking coverage for cleanup costs at the site. Plaintiff's letter to Hartford stated:</div><div></div><div> [Crest-Foam] has been required by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to address soil and groundwater contamination at its former facility in Moonachie, New Jersey. In order to comply with this requirement, Crest-Foam Corporation has incurred substantial costs and will continue to do so.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>. . .</div><div></div><div> </div><div></div><div> This letter is being sent to advise you of this loss and to request that you defend and indemnify Crest-Foam Corporation to the extent of its policy limits.</div><div></div><div> Hartford responded by letter dated September 25, 1991, indicating that it did not think the facts presented a "covered loss" but requested additional information. The letter requested the information "[i]n order to evaluate this claim you have made for coverage." The letter also stated "[t]his is to advise you that The Hartford is presently in the process of reviewing the claims against Crest Foam Corp. ... to determine whether and to what extent the policies issued by The Hartford provide coverage for such claims."</div><div></div><div> On January 17, 1992, plaintiff provided Hartford with the additional information it had requested. On January 24, 1992, Hartford again responded by writing that it "did not consider this a covered loss" but again sought additional information to evaluate the issue. Hartford stated "[t]he information so far reviewed indicates that Crest Foam had knowledge of this problem in 1986 but did not notify Hartford until 9/21/91." The author also stated he was "extremely concerned that the late reporting has compromised Hartford's position."</div><div></div><div> After receiving no response to this request, Hartford wrote to plaintiff on October 9, 1992, again requesting information. Without receiving an express "denial" from Hartford, plaintiff filed this action in February 1993 seeking a "declaratory judgment" (count one) and, inter alia, a declaration of rights, "recovery" and indemnification based on "breach of contract" (count two).</div><div></div><div> In January 1996, Judge Marguerite T. Simon granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on the grounds that the ECRA clean-up costs were "`damages' for which plaintiff is legally obligated to pay" for purposes of coverage under the Hartford policies and because the ACO was not an obligation "voluntarily" assumed for purposes of a policy exclusion. Thereafter, Hartford moved for summary judgment in June 1996, on the basis that plaintiff's action was barred by the six-year statute of limitations. According to Hartford the claim was barred by plaintiff's failure to bring suit within six years of its discovery of ground water contamination and execution of the ACO. Judge Simon denied Hartford's motion "without prejudice." She found that the knowledge of ground water contamination in 1986 and the signing of the ACO were not sufficient to trigger the running of the statute of limitations.</div><div></div><div> Hartford renewed its motion for summary judgment in May 1998 based upon then recently decided case law to the effect that the insured's cause of action accrues when the insured discovers the contamination that is the basis for its claim. The motion was denied by Judge Martin J. Kole, who found that, although Hartford advised that it did not consider the claim a covered loss, "the request for additional information" "gave Crest-Foam a reasonable basis for assuming" that Hartford would reconsider its position. He concluded that the statute of limitations therefore "either tolled or should not be applied here as a matter of fairness and justice." Judge Kole further held that, in any event, the statute of limitations only begins to run when "the insurer declines to pay the insured's claim," and since Hartford did not deny coverage and "breach[] its insurance contract with Crest Foam by denying coverage" until it answered the declaratory judgment complaint, the action was not barred by the statute of limitations.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div> df19127ead</div>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2