Tracey Richardson
Last activity
Member since
Votes
10
Subscriptions
11
Replies
Tracey Richardson commented,
Ruth Canham-James, Ah! I was told it was 6 weeks, but the issue we had with the dates for this learner is due to it happening during the summer holidays, so I was relying on dates given to me by my boss, so it calculates as 41 days. Might be worth me checking with the learner/employer to make sure I have the correct dates for starters. That said, if it is the case that these are the correct dates, then I assume that if I close the original down as withdrawn, then 'restart' a new ILR with new dates and new employer, that is the correct way to sort this issue? TBH, I have only had to deal with learners that have been made redundant in the past, so hasn't caused me the same issue. Thanks again.
Ruth Canham-James, Ah! I was told it was 6 weeks, but the issue we had with the dates for this learner is due to it happening during the summer holidays, so I was relying on dates given to me by my...
Tracey Richardson commented,
I also have EmpStat_09 for a learner who was released from his previous company, but them managed to find employment with another company within the 6 week period, and the field value is relating to his original start date with his previous employer (EmpStat=(missing)|LearnStartDate=06/01/2025|) so not sure what I should do, as I have put a new date for his new employment in; should I have put this as a ‘restart’, despite the fact he has still been in training throughout his break in employment? I also have a R110 error for the same learner, where it states the field value FundModel=36|LearnDelFAMDateFrom=06/01/2025|EmpStat= | On top of this I have the warning EmpStat_12 for the same learner.
I also have EmpStat_09 for a learner who was released from his previous company, but them managed to find employment with another company within the 6 week period, and the field value is relating t...
Tracey Richardson commented,
Ruth Canham-James, as always, a massive thanks for the confirmation. I think as I've been trying to do all the ILR returns, at the same time as trying to calculate the new starts dates/Training Plans and then sorting out other stuff on top, just fried my brain a little so started doubting myself on things. So, thank you for helping.
Ruth Canham-James, as always, a massive thanks for the confirmation. I think as I've been trying to do all the ILR returns, at the same time as trying to calculate the new starts dates/Training Pla...
Tracey Richardson commented,
Ruth Canham-James Thank you (again!) I thought it had looked pretty straight forward until I came to doing the funding calculations and then thought I have to use our planned duration as opposed to the minimum OTJ hours, and then felt like I'd opened a can of worms when I started getting a few conflicting answers! On this note, we have a guy joining the plumbing group and due to prior learning, is permitted to come in at Phase 3, so in effect would be 50% RPL, so using my old calculations this would equate to 24 months and 557 OTJ hours, but para 33.2 states the RPL planned hours have to be more or equal to the minimum (Annex C) requirement for the standard, which in this case is 37 months and 857 OTJ hours? So, does this mean that I can't take this learner on into Phase 3 (as per the on-programme guidelines for RPL)? Or, is this actually meaning that as we would normally deliver the programme over 48 months, this element of the calculation is meeting the conditions of para 33.2, and the fact the 50% reduction then takes the OTJ below the Annex C minimum, this will be permitted? I just want to make certain that we aren't going to fall foul of the new changes due to mis-interpretation. Thanks again.
Ruth Canham-James Thank you (again!) I thought it had looked pretty straight forward until I came to doing the funding calculations and then thought I have to use our planned duration as opposed to...
Tracey Richardson commented,
Hi All, From my understanding, the look-up table at annex C gives guidance as to what RPL reduction can be applied, so for example for a min OTJ of 487, it equates to a min of 21 months training, but if the learner had relevant RPL that would reduce the programme below 21 months, then by using the look-up table it will show you the new minimum required, e.g. if it reduced to 19 months training then the OTJ would then be 418 hours. Further to this is how this affects the calculations with regards to the reduction in funding as there is no longer a direct correlation to OTJ and hours on programme, but the new funding rules doesn't appear to address this as such, as it still seems to be written in a similar way to last years? Or, is it suggesting that although they have published a minimum OTJ figure, if your programme is greater than the 'minimum' number of months you would have to base it on the old calculations (as per the look-up table) and put your OTJ down as per how many months/weeks you run the programme? For example, we run the plumbing standard which is 48 months, (which would work out at 1114 hours OTJ), but the calculation as per Annex C suggests that the minimum OTJ is 857, which equates to 37 months (God only knows how people are achieving this properly in that time without RPL??) All the webinars I have been on so far, all suggest that we can simply put 857 hours down, regardless of whether we keep them on the 48 month programme; it would only be if we need to deliver it over a shorter period due to RPL, that falls below the 37 months, would we reduce the RPL. Anyone got any thoughts/advice on this one at all please?
Hi All, From my understanding, the look-up table at annex C gives guidance as to what RPL reduction can be applied, so for example for a min OTJ of 487, it equates to a min of 21 months training, b...
Tracey Richardson commented,
Ruth Canham-James, thanks yet again, you're a star. We will put the employer name down on our ILR, as we have to send electronic forms out for them to sign for enrolment etc., but we will then add a note alongside their details to state the parent company, so if we have any issues on the ILR returns, with their name on, we have a record to say which employer it relates to, but I think the fact that we have had to approach so many people for help on this, I think this one will stick in our minds!! Should have just come onto the forum in the first place!!
Ruth Canham-James, thanks yet again, you're a star. We will put the employer name down on our ILR, as we have to send electronic forms out for them to sign for enrolment etc., but we will then add ...
Tracey Richardson commented,
Ruth Canham-James Thanks for your response. It's much appreciated, as every day seems to be a school day with some of these new scenarios we have had. We do have some employers that have different entries on DAS, to what is recorded in the ILR, but these tend to be small companies, who are perhaps not registered on Companies House, and yes, they haven't caused a DLock admittedly, but we also had a couple of companies that changed their trading name and as the PAYE had also changed, we had to change both sets of records to prevent any mismatch. In this case, the holding company looks like a standalone business on Companies House, which appears to just deal with 'Activities of Head Offices', so looks like management of the payroll and PAYE etc. for the main employer, who themselves are down as a company in their own right, for their line of work, on Companies House, but look like they come under the umbrella of the first company, which is why I contacted Helpdesk to see how to record these correctly on the ILR, but their response was to say the two sets of data have to match. On our ILR system, it will allow us to record single organisations, the Registered offices and the associated branch offices, so are you saying that we should just record as normal as 'single organisation' and let the ULN match the records up for the funding in effect, Or record the main PAYE company down as the 'Registered Office, then add the employers trading name down as being a 'branch' office (not sure if it would allow that to happen with there being two company registration numbers?)
Ruth Canham-James Thanks for your response. It's much appreciated, as every day seems to be a school day with some of these new scenarios we have had. We do have some employers that have different...
Tracey Richardson commented,
Jessica De Melo, thanks for that. I think we need to chase this up perhaps, as I would have at least expected some login to have been sent by now.
Jessica De Melo, thanks for that. I think we need to chase this up perhaps, as I would have at least expected some login to have been sent by now.
Tracey Richardson commented,
My boss created an email for this in September last year (ironically straight after we had just had an Ofsted visit!), and sent back the required information they were after, but we haven't heard anything more from it since. Should we have been given access, or is this something we will be sent before our next Ofsted visit?
My boss created an email for this in September last year (ironically straight after we had just had an Ofsted visit!), and sent back the required information they were after, but we haven't heard a...
Tracey Richardson commented,
With regards to the comments that Martin has written, whilst we have recorded the Actual end date as being the last date of training, as he has stated, it is the comment about the fact that the Achievement date should be recorded at the end of the EPA period, regardless of the outcome. I assume this is in order to release the completion payments to the training provider? When a failure occurs, Martin has suggested that 3 'No achievement' should be used, but what about where the EPAO requires only certain elements of the EPA to take place as part of the resit? Should that not then be Outcome 2 'Partial completion', and when the apprentice finally achieves after the resit, is this data not captured at all, to acknowledge the pass?
With regards to the comments that Martin has written, whilst we have recorded the Actual end date as being the last date of training, as he has stated, it is the comment about the fact that the Ach...