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,
Andrew Traynor Forgot to subscribe myself to the topic so I missed your question. I agree with what Becky has put (that the TNP for 19/20 starts includes the amount over the funding cap) but can't now recall if you need to record the employer's payment of this amount as a PMR on the ILR, as opposed to just holding the evidence on file. Looking in the various historical documents for 19/20 I can't find anything to say that you must enter PMR1 for them but I may be missing it. An instinct says that it wouldn't hurt to do so but it comes down to whether the system calculates the % contribution required relevant to the band cap or the amount in the TNP. Maybe some of the other 'lifers' on here can recall better than I can! Some links if you want to take a closer look: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeship-technical-funding-guide https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apprenticeship-funding-rules#to-2020-rules https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ilr-guides-and-templates-for-2019-to-2020
Andrew Traynor Forgot to subscribe myself to the topic so I missed your question. I agree with what Becky has put (that the TNP for 19/20 starts includes the amount over the funding cap) but can't ...
Timmo commented,
I don't know if it applies in this case but back in the 19/20 academic year (when your learner started) the full delivery cost for training was entered against TNP1. This changed in the 22/23 year (see below from the App funding rules summary of changes for 22/23 page 4). "Where your standard has a higher delivery cost than the assigned funding band (e.g. the funding band max is £10,000 but your delivery cost is £12,000) we no longer need you to report your delivery cost (i.e. the £12,000). The price you enter into the ILR and the apprenticeship service must be the funding band maximum minus the cost of any relevant prior learning you have agreed with the employer, minus any additional adjustment agreed with the employer (e.g. large cohort discount)."
I don't know if it applies in this case but back in the 19/20 academic year (when your learner started) the full delivery cost for training was entered against TNP1. This changed in the 22/23 year ...
Timmo commented,
The technical specifications in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/qualification-achievement-rates-2022-to-2023? explain the principles behind this and give some worked examples, e.g. see page 29 onwards in the Apprenticeship tech spec.
The technical specifications in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/qualification-achievement-rates-2022-to-2023? explain the principles behind this and give some worked examples, e.g. see p...
Timmo commented,
Not had to deal with this but I would say the 30-day limit in para 102 is primarily intended to ensure providers don't hold on to the payments unnecessarily when they already hold bank details for an employer. There can always be a delay in getting the bank details from an employer to begin with and that can cause a delay in passing on their first incentive payment. Subsequent payments can then be handled on time. I would think that so long as you record the reason for delay somewhere (for audit) the money should still be paid to the employer unless it had already been returned to ESFA. Para 103 gives no deadline for being 'unable to pass the additional payment onto the employer' and you can argue that they did eventually respond to the request. If the payment had already been returned to ESFA then it would be lost to the employer, who should be aware of a deadline beyond which this will happen.
Not had to deal with this but I would say the 30-day limit in para 102 is primarily intended to ensure providers don't hold on to the payments unnecessarily when they already hold bank details for ...
Timmo commented,
Hi Sarah Dunsmore , Not an expert on 16-19 I'm afraid but in https://www.gov.uk/guidance/16-to-19-funding-large-programme-uplift#introduction there is a section on the Uplift Calculation. HTH
Hi Sarah Dunsmore , Not an expert on 16-19 I'm afraid but in https://www.gov.uk/guidance/16-to-19-funding-large-programme-uplift#introduction there is a section on the Uplift Calculation. HTH
Timmo commented,
Would depend on the start date for the aims. The example you give seems to start on 11th May, hence it triggers the warning - anything starting on 5th April or earlier would be OK.
Would depend on the start date for the aims. The example you give seems to start on 11th May, hence it triggers the warning - anything starting on 5th April or earlier would be OK.
Timmo commented,
I believe Milestone 1 is based on the start date of the programme and learning aims (which would both have the same date). % and qualifying periods vary according to the project. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/esfa-skills-bootcamps/esfa-skills-bootcamps-technical-funding-guide--2#the-data-we-use-to-calculate-funding paras 19-28 for non-HGV cover the basic principle
I believe Milestone 1 is based on the start date of the programme and learning aims (which would both have the same date). % and qualifying periods vary according to the project. https://www.gov.uk...
Timmo commented,
LDM 387 relates to 'SME Apprenticeship Brokerage Pathfinder' so wouldn't be appropriate for Bootcamps. As per the validation rule and the Provider Support Manual, Bootcamps are "available to all adults aged 19 or over on 31 August of the current teaching year who are full-time or part-time employed, self-employed, unemployed, and live in England". I'm not aware of any exceptions for this, so on that basis the learner wouldn't be eligible for bootcamp funding until August, i.e. the 24/25 year. Edit: I'm guessing you meant LDM 378 'Adult Level 3 Offer'? That still wouldn't apply for a Bootcamp learner, not sure if the learner qualifies if you want to record her under FCFJ as per those rules.
LDM 387 relates to 'SME Apprenticeship Brokerage Pathfinder' so wouldn't be appropriate for Bootcamps. As per the validation rule and the Provider Support Manual, Bootcamps are "available to all a...
Timmo commented,
Rachel Thompson There is an LDM code 362 that may also apply.
Rachel Thompson There is an LDM code 362 that may also apply.
Timmo commented,
Hi Leah, each local authority normally issues their own guidance regarding DAM and other local ILR codes. For example, GLA guidance documents are at this page . The 'Technical Guidance Note' and 'Funding and 'Performance Management Rules' are probably what you need for the codes. DAM 023 is often used to 'Prevent ILR validation error' but I don't know if it applies in your case.
Hi Leah, each local authority normally issues their own guidance regarding DAM and other local ILR codes. For example, GLA guidance documents are at this page . The 'Technical Guidance Note' and 'F...