Timmo
Have worked with ESFA training programme software for over 25 years. Formerly a senior training consultant for PICS with Pellcomp/Advanced, now available for freelance/contract work.
Last activity
Member since
Votes
22
Subscriptions
51
Replies
Timmo commented,
Hi, not sure TBH. Can't find any reference to that field specific for Bootcamp event aims but I don't think it has any impact on funding
Hi, not sure TBH. Can't find any reference to that field specific for Bootcamp event aims but I don't think it has any impact on funding
Timmo commented,
Posted this last week but for some reason it's not showing? Try again... Hi, The process for redundancies is explained on page 98 of the funding rules and in the provider support manual. Initially, the record can remain open while searching for a new employer, with a change to the employment status. If they become a full withdrawal, using the Withdrawal Reason code 29 (Learner has been made redundant) does not exclude a learner from QAR (full reasons for exclusion are on page 5 of the QAR technical spec).
Posted this last week but for some reason it's not showing? Try again... Hi, The process for redundancies is explained on page 98 of the funding rules and in the provider support manual. Initially,...
Timmo commented,
Hi, this PSM section and this ILR spec page explain the basic actions and data capture. For the new aims, in the field for funding adjustment for prior learning, enter the percentage of funding still to be claimed - so if 80% of funding was claimed under the old AO you would enter 20 for the new aim. This ensures that only 20% of £471 is apportioned to the new aim.
Hi, this PSM section and this ILR spec page explain the basic actions and data capture. For the new aims, in the field for funding adjustment for prior learning, enter the percentage of funding sti...
Timmo commented,
Hi, If you submitted these dates in your 22/23 ILR then you will have drawn down funding for June and July that will have to be repaid (using EAS I think?). If you have drawn down funding for periods 1 & 2 in 23/24 ILR submissions, this should be corrected if you change the start date to 26/10/23 and submit with period 3. Updated: of course, if you had earlier TNP records in 22/23 at a higher rate than the TNP3&4 effective 19/06/23, then you will have lost some funding in June & July 22/23. Correcting the new TNP 3&4 records to be effective 26/10/23 should sort out 23/24 funding however.
Hi, If you submitted these dates in your 22/23 ILR then you will have drawn down funding for June and July that will have to be repaid (using EAS I think?). If you have drawn down funding for perio...
Timmo commented,
Hi, which programme is this for, which aim reference(s) are you using and what are the start, planned and actual end dates?
Hi, which programme is this for, which aim reference(s) are you using and what are the start, planned and actual end dates?
Timmo commented,
Looking at https://guidance.submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/23-24/psm/article/recording-apprenticeship-financial-data , these points may help: If you are a provider delivering an apprenticeship to your own employees, then you do not need to record co-investment payments on the ILR. In this circumstance, you must record code LDM356 ‘Apprenticeship being delivered to own employees’ in the Learning Delivery Funding and Monitoring fields on the apprenticeship programme aim. Anything over and above the funding band is dealt with off-line between the provider and employer; the DFE does not need to know about this amount or have it recorded in the ILR or apprenticeship service. The provider also does not need to record that this money was collected from the employer
Looking at https://guidance.submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/23-24/psm/article/recording-apprenticeship-financial-data , these points may help: If you are a provider delivering an apprenticeship...
Timmo commented,
First thought, is there a reason why you can't submit the aims to identify milestones achieved in 22/23 in R14 (still a week or so left for that)? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/esfa-skills-bootcamps/esfa-skills-bootcamps-technical-funding-guide--2#introduction-and-purpose-of-the-document is probably the best point of reference to begin with. I imagine all 3 aims would still be submitted in your 23/24 ILR.
First thought, is there a reason why you can't submit the aims to identify milestones achieved in 22/23 in R14 (still a week or so left for that)? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/esfa-sk...
Timmo commented,
Michael Smith, so long as the ILR is submitted before the period closure, and there are no data mismatches or ILR validation errors, then you should get paid. The Apps Monthly Payment report will show what has gone through in period 2 - if there was money withheld from period 1 (e.g. due to Dlocks) then I think this would appear in period 2 along with the amount for that period. There's no other deadline or timelag. They run the final payment process in the days immediately after the closure and that will use whatever data exists at that time.
Michael Smith, so long as the ILR is submitted before the period closure, and there are no data mismatches or ILR validation errors, then you should get paid. The Apps Monthly Payment report will s...
Timmo commented,
Hi Michael Smith, the R02 submission deadline was 5th October rather than 6th?
Hi Michael Smith, the R02 submission deadline was 5th October rather than 6th?
Timmo commented,
Thanks Steve Hewitt, TBH I wasn't absolutely sure if they actually reran the ILR-AS match process after period closure or just did a new calculation on those they had already matched previously with a submission. As you say, if the data fix was required in the source ILR then that would certainly require a new submission. I was looking at https://help.apprenticeships.education.gov.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360008448299-Data-mismatch-errors, this line: "Data mismatches only happen after the training provider submits the ILR." I suppose to be fair that isn't saying that the same thing about data matches.
Thanks Steve Hewitt, TBH I wasn't absolutely sure if they actually reran the ILR-AS match process after period closure or just did a new calculation on those they had already matched previously wit...