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 Frances, so are you saying that some employers don't know if they pay the apps levy and how can they find out?
Hi Frances, so are you saying that some employers don't know if they pay the apps levy and how can they find out?
Timmo commented,
Hi, not clear what is it that you or the employer are trying to find out? The CITB levy is something they pay directly. I would have thought an employer large enough to be close to paying the levy would be aware of that? CITB website has a section on their levy. https://www.citb.co.uk/levy-grants-and-funding/citb-levy/ Also this page on the apprenticeship levy https://www.citb.co.uk/courses-and-qualifications/citb-apprenticeships/take-on-an-apprentice/apprenticeship-levy/
Hi, not clear what is it that you or the employer are trying to find out? The CITB levy is something they pay directly. I would have thought an employer large enough to be close to paying the levy...
Timmo commented,
Agreed, it comes down to whether that sentence (or something else in the contract) gives them the right to charge an employer the full cost for a withdrawal. I'm not sure that sentence does.
Agreed, it comes down to whether that sentence (or something else in the contract) gives them the right to charge an employer the full cost for a withdrawal. I'm not sure that sentence does.
Timmo commented,
Likewise a paid-up member of the 'not a legal expert' club. Don't you just groan at people who write 98 word sentences with 2 commas FFS! Trying to extract the crucial part of the sentence I think it is this bit: "the Training Provider shall be entitled to invoice the Employer for the Charges in accordance with the Payment Schedule and otherwise at any time for services rendered at any time before the end of the most recently ended month" So isn't that saying that they can only charge for services rendered before the end of the most recent month and thus excludes future costs? As per Ben's point 2, it then comes down to exactly what they have 'rendered' prior to the learner(s) withdrawal and whether the costs related unavoidably to future services. There may be some costs for which they could reasonably charge but surely not the whole remaining balance of the programme.
Likewise a paid-up member of the 'not a legal expert' club. Don't you just groan at people who write 98 word sentences with 2 commas FFS! Trying to extract the crucial part of the sentence I think ...
Timmo commented,
Every Standard has a last date for new starts (not restarts), as per example below. Have a look for the Standard in https://submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/find-a-learning-aim/ and see what date is set for it. [image]
Every Standard has a last date for new starts (not restarts), as per example below. Have a look for the Standard in https://submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/find-a-learning-aim/ and see what date...
Timmo commented,
Thinking further, I'm not sure what happens if you record the learner aims in PICS as ACT1L. The L/N suffix is only used by PICS and not exported in the ILR, so it has no impact with ESFA or AS. That would stop the PICS audit warning (PMRs are not expected for ACT1L) but maybe looks odd in PICS reports. It would throw an anomaly if you use the PICS funding report reconciler (i.e. if the ESFA reports identify the learner as with a non-levy employer but PICS now has them as levy-funded). TBH I'm not sure how the ESFA reports now show levy-transfers?
Thinking further, I'm not sure what happens if you record the learner aims in PICS as ACT1L. The L/N suffix is only used by PICS and not exported in the ILR, so it has no impact with ESFA or AS. Th...
Timmo commented,
For reporting purposes you can create a local field in PICS to identify any value in a report output but this wouldn't prevent the learners being included in the front page validation figures. Or I suppose you could create a separate PICS Contract, link just the levy transfer learners to it and then exclude that Contract from a manual or scheduled validation report run, but again they still get included in the front page figures. In short, no easy way round it!
For reporting purposes you can create a local field in PICS to identify any value in a report output but this wouldn't prevent the learners being included in the front page validation figures. Or I...
Timmo commented,
In PICS the only way to identify if a learner is levy or non-levy is to select that value specifically - provider MI systems have no direct access to the AS to be able to determine this (although it can be derived by linking to certain reports). Hence on PICS a learner ACT is either 1L or 1N. If the Learner ACT is 1N, PICS then looks to see if any employer contributions have been recorded (i.e. PMR). If not, this is a potential anomaly and so an audit warning is given. In time PMRs do get entered and so the anomaly disappears from reports but for levy transfer learners it's usually a false-flag because PMRs may never be required. So far as I know PICS can't tell if a learner is being funded through levy transfer (again, the ILR doesn't identify this so it would have to be a local system setting), so that circumstance won't prevent the warning being given. Remember that this is a PICS-only warning and not an ILR or AS error as such, so it is annoying rather than having any serious impact. I guess you could raise a change request with them to allow levy-transfer status to be identified and such learners identified, reported and excluded from certain validations.
In PICS the only way to identify if a learner is levy or non-levy is to select that value specifically - provider MI systems have no direct access to the AS to be able to determine this (although i...
Timmo commented,
Planned Learning Hours are captured per learner per year, rather than at aim level: https://guidance.submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/24-25/ilr/entity/Learner/field/PlanLearnHours. Aim dates remain as they were unless, as you say, they were entered incorrectly.
Planned Learning Hours are captured per learner per year, rather than at aim level: https://guidance.submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/24-25/ilr/entity/Learner/field/PlanLearnHours. Aim dates rema...
Timmo commented,
Sarah Gill Just to confirm, are you saying that these learners left in 22/23 but were not uploaded in the ILR to ESFA as leavers in that year, hence why they show as BIL or In learning? If so and you now upload their leaving details in R13/R14 for 23/24, then the hybrid rule should include them in the 23/24 QAR as that is the 'Reporting year'.
Sarah Gill Just to confirm, are you saying that these learners left in 22/23 but were not uploaded in the ILR to ESFA as leavers in that year, hence why they show as BIL or In learning? If so and y...