Sarah Kelly

Increase to EPA cost


There has been a significant increase to our EPA price, I`ve read through previous posts and can see there are various ways to resolve this on the ILR when the cost will exceed the funding band. My question is "why is this okay for a EPAO to do this for apprentices already enrolled with them"  I understand the need to review and increase costs but surely this should be for new enrolments as these prices are agreed with employers at the beginning of the programme. 

I`m curious to hear other providers views.


No one has replied to this post.

Martin Locock

Yes I would expect that the agreed price at the start should be treated as binding (and would be specified in the contract between training provider and EPAO).  Having said that, if the EPAO decided to cancel the contract because they knew they couldn't deliver at the agreed price, you're still left with the same problem.  Fundamentally this is a problem caused by the fiction that the Training Provider is subcontracting the EPAO for their services (and passing on ESFA money to them) when logically the EPAO is providing a service to ESFA and should be contracting/ being paid direct.  It would make everyone's life easier if the funding bands were calculated for the training element only.  


Ruth Canham-James

The amount of time and stress we'd save if the assessment price was separate from the providers! It might also make ESFA look at the prices being charged by the EPAOs and their refund policies if they dealt directly. They'd have to reconsider the 20% completion element if they separated them.

Paul Rogers

There is clearly a discord in the policy and the rates here.  Specifically that some EPAO's determine the price at the start of registration, and others decide the price at the start of the EPA formal start.   There are also variances which cause complication for the TNP2 value when it comes to potential discounts or reductions if the EPA takes place face to face or online (eg a £50 reduction if it is online, or a reduction of the overall fee if its a group EPA - eg hairdressing).   This is definitely being picked up by audits and sadly being interpreted as a need to readjust both the TNP1 and TNP2 values, but in some cases determining why there has been an increase in the TNP1 value at this point as a result of the reduction of the TNP2!    

In these situations, where there is no confirmation or rationale, providers have been asked for the value of the TNP1 offset / or reduction to be given back!

There appears to be a significant hang up somewhere in the chain that there is some lack of assurance that things might not be above board for financial transactions between a training provider, employer and End point assessment.

The end recommendation I did all is that you must always ensure that the values or TNP1 and TNP2 have been agreed and any variations are accounted for in the documentation before the learner is confirmed as going into gateway.   A potential to reduce administration for 24/25 perhaps if anyone is looking.