Exclude learning aims on return from BIL?

I mean, I certainly wouldn't exclude them, not least because it really mucks up the Indicative Payment Report (even more than usual!).

Also, makes it easier for you to make sure all your breaks are being correctly reported (because you've got the Original Start Date there in front of you).

There's certainly nothing written down that says we only send the most recent bit in the ILR, and if the break is in-year (eg break started in Nov and the learner came back in March), you MUST return the first bit or they'll take the funding back...

...and, of course, if they persist with the "four weeks without contact equals a BIL" nonsense, the number of breaks in the ILR will rise exponentially, so they better get used to it...

Steve Hewitt Thank you so much, I don't suppose you have any insight into what they were referring to when they said we are returning multiple records do you?

We will go back to them of course, but just after your thoughts?

Thanks,

Claire

Um, not really? Assuming everything is recorded properly (old records have 6&3, new records have restart flag, original start date) then I can't see a problem?

Obviously, am absolutely *fascinated* by what they *think* is happening, so do please Report Back once you've got to the bottom of it!

Steve Hewitt Yes, old records have 6&3, new records are restarts and all have the original start date.

I will definitely keep you updated, if we ever get to the bottom of it! 

Who at ESFA advised you were returning multiple rows? In what context did that come up and why was it an issue? You definitely need to keep the old temp withdrawal enrolments in the ILR. I've had some very odd comments/misinformation from the help desk a few times, just down to ignorance of that staff member.