Is this non-compete legal?

[Noncompete]

I have been offered a training position in a role where members of the public come for classes. The company consists of branches in different localities across a county.

I receive no payment at all for being a trainee, and the knowledge and experience gained is considered full payment. There are vague stipulations as to what is deemed qualified, and it states that 1-6 years can be considered reasonable to get qualified.

The training contract has a non-compete clause that states that I am not allowed to offer any advice or training in the subject for monetary gain, within 3 miles of any branch (which basically rules out most of my county) for a period of 2 years after leaving them.

That means that if I sign this contract, I am committing that I won't give any paid advice or training in this area for, potentially, 8 years.

I was quite interested, in the future, in doing this training on a residential basis, but I live within 1 mile of a branch, so would be unable to.

Is this legal or enforceable?

No, sorry if I wasn't clear. I will be attending the sessions and getting no payment for my time. Possibly for up to 6 years. Then, once I have completed the 2 courses (that I must pay to attend), and passed the written and practical exams, I will be eligible to be a 'trainer' and at that point could be given payment.

However, the contract is not clear on who decides when a trainee is considered 'ready' to take the exams (they are in-house). Also, as it is a self-employed position (presumably), the contract does not give any assurance that a paid position will be available once fully trained. Each branch has their own manager, and the system seems to be almost franchise-like.

“Franchise like” is setting alarm bells.

You’re going to qualify at your expense, to potentially work under their name, sounds very pyramid like

Every update gets more alarming. Just walk away

To those saying "potentially enforceable if only at the branch you're training at" - courts have no power to amend an unenforceable restriction to make it within the scope of what would be enforceable. They can only find it to be of no effect. The only circumstances in which words can be deleted from a restrictive covenant clause is if the words can be deleted while meaning the rest of the clause making sense. Whether that can be done depends on the exact wording. But a court cannot, for example, change a 2 year restriction to 1 year.

Not quite pyramid, because it's only the brand owner who gets a slice of the income from each branch, but yes, otherwise. I would be paying to attend the courses, and if I left before the end of 'training' I wouldn't have anything to show. Equally, the courses that I am required to do are in-house so don't have any 'qualification' attached, except that I would be eligible to take the 'qualification' of the owner...

I don't think it's a bad thing if you are happy to stay in one organisation for your entire life - if you are happy with the way they do things, happy with their policies, etc., but in reality, it means that you will always be giving a cut of your income to the brand owner, and if you comply with the clauses, you would completely lose your income from that stream of work for 2 years if you leave, unless you move out of area.

Look for your training elsewhere.