Aaron Macadam
Last activity
Member since
Votes
5
Subscriptions
5
Replies
Aaron Macadam commented,
Hey Ceri, This was the response - we had to go with not eligible, as they did not meet requirements of having settled status, and had not been in UK for 3 years. The reference you have made to the Funding Rules is the following "P368 EEA and Switzerland nationals who have obtained either pre-settled or settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, and have lived continuously in the EEA, Switzerland, Gibraltar or the UK for at least the previous 3 years on the first day of their apprenticeship will be eligible for funding." As the skilled worker visa isn't specifically mentioned within this rule, this wouldn't apply to your case. If you are unsure of the specifics of the visa either the learner or yourself can contact Home Office for further information. We usually see apprentices who stay in the UK on a Skilled Worker visa being eligible under the following rules: "P395 A non-UK national is eligible for funding if they have permission from the UK government to live in the UK (not for educational purposes), and have been ordinarily resident in the UK for at least the previous three years before the start of the apprenticeship. Providers also need to ensure that the remaining funding rules are met – for example, the visa will need to be long enough to cover the entire length of the apprenticeship course to comply with rule P78.2: P78 To use funds in the employer's apprenticeship service account or government-employer co-investment, the individual must: P78.2 Be able to complete the apprenticeship within the time they have available. If you know an individual is unable to complete the apprenticeship in the time they have available, they must not be funded." I hope this answers your query
Hey Ceri, This was the response - we had to go with not eligible, as they did not meet requirements of having settled status, and had not been in UK for 3 years.The reference you have made to the F...
Aaron Macadam commented,
Another one, I think - This one the cert doesn't mention QLS just states Functional Skills Maths/English - Level 2, but the website etc mentions QLS (plus the exam is like 20 mins and I think MCQ) 'A CPD QS accredited Certificate from One Education.' https://www.oneeducation.org.uk/course/functional-skills-english-level-2-3/ https://www.oneeducation.org.uk/qls-courses-certificates/ Wish was something could do to stop things being referred to as 'Functional Skills' - no wonder candidates get upset/confused when they pay and take time to pursue these snake oil quals.
Another one, I think - This one the cert doesn't mention QLS just states Functional Skills Maths/English - Level 2, but the website etc mentions QLS (plus the exam is like 20 mins and I think MCQ)...
Aaron Macadam commented,
@Steve Hewitt Thanks for that, it's a shame they can get away with such misleading course titles. We have had one recently where the cert says 'FS level 2', yet inputting the cert code onto the providers website shows the certificate in digital format as 'Access to FS level 2'. Dodgy!
@Steve Hewitt Thanks for that, it's a shame they can get away with such misleading course titles. We have had one recently where the cert says 'FS level 2', yet inputting the cert code onto the pro...
Aaron Macadam commented,
@Steve Hewitt resurrecting this old thread as have essentially the same question, the resource you linked is no longer active, do you have any advice on how to tell for certain if certs are acceptable or not, aside from the ESFA document (We have what sounds like identical to the original query, a CPD accredited FS English level 2 with 'QLS' in the title). Thank you!
@Steve Hewitt resurrecting this old thread as have essentially the same question, the resource you linked is no longer active, do you have any advice on how to tell for certain if certs are accepta...
Aaron Macadam commented,
Thanks all, yeah hopefully it is all Non Levy, not looking forward to the extra admin with the less than 50 employees checks for the increased age range if it does go down that path... we'll see.
Thanks all, yeah hopefully it is all Non Levy, not looking forward to the extra admin with the less than 50 employees checks for the increased age range if it does go down that path... we'll see.
Aaron Macadam commented,
Is there info about any limitations on who this applies too with regards to the employer size? Currently 16-18 year old candidates working at employers with less than 50 employees would be exempt from the co-investment. With this change, would the exemption for up to 21 year olds only be for employers with less than 50 employees? Or is the change now just essentially any non levy employer with a candidate less than 21 years old will be exempt? Cheers
Is there info about any limitations on who this applies too with regards to the employer size? Currently 16-18 year old candidates working at employers with less than 50 employees would be exempt f...
Aaron Macadam commented,
Thanks Helen, yep the candidate is aware they can no longer claim, I may have misinterpreted the DSA website page, I thought it meant the payments were yearly so that this candidate still could be under a years worth of 'live' payments (if that makes sense), but is it more a case that DSA funding is used 'as and whe'n a candidate needs it? So therefore stopping it should be fine to proceed? Thanks again
Thanks Helen, yep the candidate is aware they can no longer claim, I may have misinterpreted the DSA website page, I thought it meant the payments were yearly so that this candidate still could be ...
Aaron Macadam commented,
Thanks for your reply Steveh, looking like this one will not be eligible then - my request with ESFA actually just got escalated so will update should anything come of it. Thanks again,
Thanks for your reply Steveh, looking like this one will not be eligible then - my request with ESFA actually just got escalated so will update should anything come of it.Thanks again,
Aaron Macadam commented,
Thanks for that Martin, we assumed so but thought to double check
Thanks for that Martin, we assumed so but thought to double check