Replies
No one has replied to this post.
TNP 1 and 2 haven't changed definition, they still represent the total price actually charged, post any reductions. RIP is just showing the amount you reduced it by specifically due to RPL, ignoring any other reasons for reduction. RIP shouldn't have any bearing on indicative earnings, it's just some extra info for DfE that doesn't functionally do anything, same as the value we used to put in DAS.
It does sound wrong that the Apps Indicative isn't including your TNP1. Have you doubled checked that it was actually in the xml file correctly?
Also, marginally confused by "indicative earnings application"? Do you mean the spreadsheet and, if so, the FIS or SLD version? Both versions looks "normal" to me, ie the Total Price Applicable To This Episode column is TNP1+TNP2.
If you don't mean the spreadsheet, what is it (worth pointing out the spreadsheet has new columns in, so any third-party tool might just not be counting things correctly?)?
Chris Ashfield
RIP Errors
Created
Hi everyone,
We are experiencing an issue while preparing our R01 submission:
We are experiencing an issue with the new Reduction in Price (RIP) recording. We understand that RIP 1 should record the reduction in the total negotiated price attributable to prior learning. We have recorded the usual TNP 1 and TNP 2 entries, together with an additional RIP entry showing the deduction. However, the indicative earnings application appears to recognise only the TNP 2 value and does not take the RIP entry into account. As a result, it is showing an indicative value of £2,000 rather than the expected total of £12,000.
Has anyone else experienced this and are you able to confirm the correct way to record the TNP and RIP entries, including whether the reductions must be flagged within the TNP 1 record as well as being recorded separately through RIP?
Thanks so much everyone