Steve Haynes

Figures on the Funding Summary report vs Remittance Advice


Hi, is it common for the figures within the Funding Summary report, issued by the ESFA post-submission, to differ from the figures on the Remittance Advice (also released by the ESFA post-submission)? 

I am struggling to understand why these two figures would differ and would be very grateful if anyone was able to offer some advice/support.

Thanks in advance, Steve


No one has replied to this post.

Phil Dawe

I believe, Funding summary report is calculated from the current submission in a vacuum. The remittance report will take into account all previous returns.

If you have withdrawal dates prior to the start of this period, changes to outcomes previously reported or early completions then I would expect to see some variation.



Martin Locock

The variation may not be fully explainable using the Funding Summary Report  and Monthly Payment Report - I had an unexplained difference which the HelpDesk clarified was an FRM27 (previous year) recovery.   The Funding Summary Report has a line for clawbacks but those are (I think) only in-year.  

Steve Haynes

Thank you both for your replies - I appreciate your time.

Phil Dawe, can I just clarify I understand your comment (apologies if I am being thick).  If I understand correctly, what you are saying is if in that submission we have (for example) withdrawn a record back 2 months, in the Funding Summary report it would just take into account that learner isn't attracting funding for that month, but the Remittance Advice would also take into account two OPPs have been clawed back - am I on the right lines?!

If I am right, that would explain why the Remittance Advice is less than the FSR, but it is the other way round?!

Any additional support you can offer would be gratefully received.


Phil Dawe

Hi Steve Haynes yup you have hit the nail in the head.
As in your example if you have untimely withdrawals - withdrawals in months prior to the current return - then yes I would expect to see a clawback.

However it can also work the other way too.

For example if you realise that a learner had been incorrectly returned as a non-achiever (2:3) in a previous return and you correct it to an achiever (2:1) then I would expect to see an over payment for the 20% achievement payment. Adding Learning support or changing learner/delivery postcodes or moving actual end dates past the census date (1st of month) will also generate more funding than prev. paid.
Have you compared your R06 and R07 Funding Summary reports? Do they show any inconsistencies that would explain the over payment?

Also as Martin Locock pointed out, did you have any FRM errors in R06 or before that you have cleared this month releasing additional funds?