Martin Outlaw
Last activity
Member since
Votes
0
Subscriptions
13
Replies
Martin Outlaw commented,
Have you checked that they haven't already started the Apprenticeship with a different provider whilst they were still 16-18?
Have you checked that they haven't already started the Apprenticeship with a different provider whilst they were still 16-18?
Martin Outlaw commented,
Hi Chris, If the learner holds a GCSE grade 4 or above in Maths / English, you do not need to record anything in the MCF / ECF HTH
Hi Chris, If the learner holds a GCSE grade 4 or above in Maths / English, you do not need to record anything in the MCF / ECF HTH
Martin Outlaw commented,
Hi, Unfortunately I have no examples from which I can check, but if they were submitted as leavers prior to R01 / R13, then surely there must be a recovery in one of the Apps monthly payment reports. Have you checked that they were actually included in the export files for both periods? Sorry, I can't think of anything else, perhaps some else has an example they can use to verify this. Martin
Hi, Unfortunately I have no examples from which I can check, but if they were submitted as leavers prior to R01 / R13, then surely there must be a recovery in one of the Apps monthly payment report...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Hi, The details of the recovery should be in the Apps Monthly payment report for R13, but the money doesn't come off until R02. Any R14 recoveries come off R03. You need to know what is coming off which funding line, as you will not get a separate remittance. HTH
Hi, The details of the recovery should be in the Apps Monthly payment report for R13, but the money doesn't come off until R02. Any R14 recoveries come off R03. You need to know what is coming off ...
Martin Outlaw commented,
The main point is to consider whether or not the delivery of the standard is viable at the level of funding remaining. 2) The ESFA will pay £16200, you can agree a new rate with the employer, or you can invoice them for the £760 or any compromise value between the 2, eg invoice for £380, splitting the difference. 3) The ESFA will pay their 95% share of the £2428.65 being £2307.21, and you already have the remaining £121.43 from the employer. You have also received a further £199.12 from the employer (3982.36 * 0.05). The decision now becomes, with a reasonable assessment of how much delivery is still required to get this learner through their EPA, what is the smallest amount of money you are willing to do this for. a) £2428.65 - repay the additional 5% £199.12 b) What you have received from the employer so far + everything you can get from the ESFA totalling £2,627.76 , no need to do anything else. c) £6411 as per the original agreement - you would need to invoice the employer for 100% of the difference, an additional £3783.24. I would be very much surprised if they agreed to this. d) Somewhere between b & c , an additional invoice to the employer of such a value that they can accept, and allows you to deliver the standard at no great loss to yourselves. This will depend on your relationship with the employer, whether you have any other learners with them, or whether you are willing to accept this as a loss leader to generate good will and potential for further engagement.
The main point is to consider whether or not the delivery of the standard is viable at the level of funding remaining. 2) The ESFA will pay £16200, you can agree a new rate with the employer, or yo...
Martin Outlaw commented,
@... If they are levy you would get whatever funding is remaining, up to the capped limit, this would include what is left for an outcome. If they are non-levy you would need to collect 5% of the value remaining, as you would under normal circumstances. Any amount shown as above the capped limit is not of interest to the ESFA, and strictly between you and the employer. If they are not willing to pay at least some of this, then you need to consider the viability of the remaining delivery.
@... If they are levy you would get whatever funding is remaining, up to the capped limit, this would include what is left for an outcome. If they are non-levy you would need to collect 5% of the v...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Victoria Mansfield I disagree, all of our LEVY-#### are Apprenticeship (Employer on App Service) Levy funding, and all of our NLA-#### are Apprenticeship (Employer on App Service) Non-Levy funding. What you are looking for is this from the Apps Monthly Payments report. The first row has no levy left for this learner so all of the month's funding was co-investment. The second row has insufficient levy funds to cover this learner, so most is paid from levy, but with some of it requiring co-investment. Contract no August (R01) levy payments August (R01) co-investment payments August (R01) co-investment due from employer LEVY-#### 0 234.40572 12.33714 LEVY-#### 137.71268 29.15295 1.53437
Victoria Mansfield I disagree, all of our LEVY-#### are Apprenticeship (Employer on App Service) Levy funding, and all of our NLA-#### are Apprenticeship (Employer on App Service) Non-Levy funding....
Martin Outlaw commented,
Henry Wish Thank you Henry, the ability to export the background data has been returned. (A ticket had been logged - CI-0248600 ) The query regarding which date are being used for the calculations is still outstanding (CI-0226427 ) I have just raised a query about the the home page of FE provider dashboard (prototype) - Apprenticeship Accountability Framework & the home page of FE provider dashboard are still showing the Learner numbers from R14, whilst displaying latest data provided on 26 Jan 2024 (R05). (CI-0248984)
Henry Wish Thank you Henry, the ability to export the background data has been returned. (A ticket had been logged - CI-0248600 ) The query regarding which date are being used for the calculations ...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Ben James, Thank you for your comment, as until now I was not aware if this was an issue for anybody else, or just something my end that was preventing the export option from being available. I am aware the Henry monitors the boards, and had heard nothing from him, so was worried that it was a local issue. I have now raised a query with the EFSA helpdesk. I have also re-raised the query regarding which date is being used to calculate Past planned End date, and breaks in learning. I have been told that it is the ILR refence date, which to me means the month end, as per their example on the AFF guidance "ILR Reference date (e.g. 31/03/2022) for R08)", however they are clearly using the file submission date R05 2023/24 05/01/2024.
Ben James, Thank you for your comment, as until now I was not aware if this was an issue for anybody else, or just something my end that was preventing the export option from being available. I am ...