Replies
No one has replied to this post.
Thanks Steve Hewitt.
It's one of those were I was confident I was right, but I've been confident before and wrong so thought it worth asking for some opinions.
I do think they should have 2 reports. One for pre-25/26 starts where their nominal minimum hours calculation would apply and those starting from 25/26 where the focus would just be "Is this reduced figure due to RPL, and if so, is it sufficiently evidenced"?
I'll contact KPMG via the DSAT helpdesk and see if they have anything to say about it, but will relax concerning our two 100% legitimate RPL starts.
Hi there,
Was just looking at that one on the DSAT report, "as there's no way in the ILR to indicate that RPL has been applied", that why they have added new hours fields into 2026/2027 spec. "
-
Planned hours for off the job training due to a reduction in prior learning (HRS 4) should record the hours of off-the-job training that have been removed from the apprenticeship in recognition of prior learning."
lots of new HRS types.
Wayne
Becky O'Brien
DSAT 26A-215 planned OTJ implications
Edited
We've had our first two apprentices where applying RPL has taken them below the standard minimum.
The way read the rules, as long as the hours aren't lower than 187, and the duration isn't less than 8 months this is fine. Also duration is no longer linked to hours worked or RPL, and that length is now "whatever works best for the situation".
However, the DSAT report 26A-215 implications state that "where the hours are lower than the standard minimum" (and then go on to describe a notional calculated minimum using duration, stat leave, & employment intensity which should surely only apply to starts prior to 25/26) that:
I do agree that the learners should be in the report, as there's no way in the ILR to indicate that RPL has been applied, so they do need to be flagged as being under the standard minimum so we can check whether or not this is the case. My issue is only with the wording which I think should prominently mention that RPL could apply, and that in those cases we need to check that it has been done correctly.
Am I grossly misunderstanding the rules, or are the implications of this report not quite right?