Replies
No one has replied to this post.
Not had to deal with this but I would say the 30-day limit in para 102 is primarily intended to ensure providers don't hold on to the payments unnecessarily when they already hold bank details for an employer. There can always be a delay in getting the bank details from an employer to begin with and that can cause a delay in passing on their first incentive payment. Subsequent payments can then be handled on time.
I would think that so long as you record the reason for delay somewhere (for audit) the money should still be paid to the employer unless it had already been returned to ESFA. Para 103 gives no deadline for being 'unable to pass the additional payment onto the employer' and you can argue that they did eventually respond to the request.
If the payment had already been returned to ESFA then it would be lost to the employer, who should be aware of a deadline beyond which this will happen.
Callum Jones
Unpaid 16-18 Incentive
Created
The Funding Rules state that an incentive payment must be paid to the employer within 30 days of receiving it (Para 102). Further, in paragraph 103, it states if the employer has not responded to numerous requests for bank details then the payment should be returned through EAS.
My question is, therefore, if an employer finally provides their bank details say, 120 days after the payment was received by the Provider, but before the Provider has completed their EAS, should the payment then be returned through EAS or paid to the employer?
Thanks in advance.