Kristian Munroe

Change in EPA pricing

Edited

None

Hi, I have read a few posts on this but am still unclear. Our EPAO has lowered their cost from £700 to £650. We have about 100 learners currently on this standard.

Is it a requirement that we must record a new TNP2 or do we amend the initial one? Also, are we able to then add that £50 to the TNP1 due to the cost of administration in making all these changes with employers informed of this? Thus meaning the AS account won't need amending and us risking potential DLOCK nightmares I've read about for the sake of £50?

Or can they be left as £700 for those currently recorded that amount, and going forward record the new price? If so, where does the remaining £50 go once we pay EPAO the £650 they ask for? Thanks for your help. Kristian.

Replies

No one has replied to this post.


Ben James

You'd want to add a new TNP2 line with the date the price was re-negotiated (guidance). For example;

Original price records;

TNP1 - 01/08/2020 - 10000

TNP2 - 01/08/2020 - 700

After renegotiation;

TNP1 - 01/08/2020 - 10000

TNP2 - 01/08/2020 - 700

TNP2 - 25/06/2021 - 650

Regarding increasing the cost of the training price, providing that's agreed with the employer and it doesn't exceed the funding band maximum, there's no reason you couldn't - it would definitely save DLOCK headaches, but you'd need to confirm with them and then add a new TNP1 line in the same way as the new TNP2 has been above. As to whether you should implement this on existing learner records or simply apply the new price going forward, I would suggest if this is what the EPAO is charging then it makes sense for you to adjust the ILRs accordingly. 

(Edited)

Steve Hewitt

Yeah, not great to just add the £50 onto the TNP1, even though it's going to cause you (and the employer) a whole pile of work...

Kristian Munroe

Thanks for the replies.

It is a bit of an ethical conundrum... 

On our apprenticeship agreement we break down where the negotiated price goes, which includes training (obviously), inductions, overheads etc. and the employer agrees to this. Based on this then, the admin would be slightly higher as there is more involved when making this change. This way also removes the work from the employer as they would not need to go back into the Apprentice Account to accept a change in the funding reservation.

To be honest, I would rather not change anything. However I'm not sure if it is an actual funding requirement that means we have to change it... The prices agreed at the beginning have not been re-negotiated, just the EPAO reduced the cost by £50. However If we record £700 and only pay £650 for 100 apprentices, then there is £5,000 that goes somewhere I'm not sure of, but if it stays with us, doesn't look good either.

 

 

Ben James

Completely understand, and actually I'm sure if you explain it that way to the Employer they're likely to agree as well. In my experience they want DAS administration to be as easy as possible. The overall financial obligation on their part is not going to change and you are incurring some degree of excess administration so shifting the 'money saved' from the revised EPA to the training cost isn't wholly unreasonable - I'm just not sure if an auditor would see it that way if there hadn't been any Employer consultation. Similarly, I imagine they'd probably frown upon you having agreed to charge the Employer 'x' amount at the outset to cover training and EPA costs (granted the split isn't usually disclosed).. but then after having been notified of a reduced cost by the EPAO, failing to make them aware/pocketing the difference, which will almost certainly happen if you don't revise the costs and therefore your ILR/DAS doesn't reflect a change.

(Edited)

Martin West

I think you all know what you should do, I say no more.

Tracey Widdows

Hi

We have the opposite problem, our EPA prices have increased and we are already on the maximum funding band for that qualification so what happens then? I change the TNP2 price but I am now showing over the funding band maximum, ESFA rules state  that the employer has to pay any amount over the funding band, not really fair to go back to the employer and tell them they now have to pay more because the EPA has increased their prices?

Steve Hewitt

It *should* be in your contract with the employer...

You don't have much choice in the matter, let's put it that way...

(interestingly, although the audit check requires the auditor to see the money going from your bank account to the EPAO, it does not explicitly tell the auditor to check that amount vs TNP2...)

Tracey Widdows

Thanks Steve,

I can't see anywhere in the funding rules to state this. 

It states that you have to show the negotiated EPA price with the employer and if it is above the funding band they are liable for the extra, but I can't find any mention that they should also pay any increases the EPAO imposes after the EPA price has been agreed and that it should state this in the contract?

Steve Hewitt

Sure, but TNP 2 *must* be the cost of the EPA (and nothing else), so, by definition, where that's over the max, the employer has to pay.

I was suggesting a broader "any costs over the max must be covered by the employer" type clause to the contract?