Ian Barrett
Last activity
Member since
Votes
1
Subscriptions
4
Replies
Ian Barrett commented,
Thanks for coming back to me Steve. Very frustrating these 'get back to you in 10 days' responses aren't they? Unfortunately the person is an applicant rather than a learner so they didn't start in 23-24. It therefore appears as if they would be ineligible until they get their Visa extension approved.
Thanks for coming back to me Steve. Very frustrating these 'get back to you in 10 days' responses aren't they? Unfortunately the person is an applicant rather than a learner so they didn't start i...
Ian Barrett commented,
Afternoon all, I'm wondering if there has been any update on this situation? We have just been notified of an apprentice applicant in this position; they had a Visa and applied for it to be extended prior to its expiry date but it has now expired. Does this mean that they are ineligible until they receive a response to their extension request? We will raise with the helpdesk but to save time I'm wondering whether anyone has already done this and received advice? Thanks Ian
Afternoon all, I'm wondering if there has been any update on this situation? We have just been notified of an apprentice applicant in this position; they had a Visa and applied for it to be extend...
Ian Barrett commented,
Yes, Steve is right on this one. I've had discussions with ESFA about this in the past as it discourages providers to take on transferring learners. Their take on it is that we should charge the employer the difference because the employer should have been aware through the review process. Good luck with that! It only makes sense if there's the potential for further business as Steve says.
Yes, Steve is right on this one. I've had discussions with ESFA about this in the past as it discourages providers to take on transferring learners. Their take on it is that we should charge the em...
Ian Barrett commented,
Hi both, this must be monitored as our ESFA Contract Manager highlighted a while ago that we had a couple of learners on programme who appeared to be on a standard that was 'not applicable' as a progression route from their previously completed T-level. It was very early days so we hadn't expected any to come through and didn't have relevant checks in place. We didn't challenge with ESFA as the progression profiles do seem fairly cut and dried in respect of not applicable standards but maybe we should have. Our processes would prevent this happening again and I'm not aware we've had any subsequent challenge from applicants/employers who have been prevented from the particular progression route. It's definitely something that is looked at in advance of audit though.
Hi both, this must be monitored as our ESFA Contract Manager highlighted a while ago that we had a couple of learners on programme who appeared to be on a standard that was 'not applicable' as a pr...
Ian Barrett commented,
I agree about waiting for official confirmation but I've asked AELP the same question and their understanding, from conversation with the DfE, is that it will apply to all non-levy employers.
I agree about waiting for official confirmation but I've asked AELP the same question and their understanding, from conversation with the DfE, is that it will apply to all non-levy employers.
Ian Barrett commented,
I'd be interested to know what providers currently do and what they intend doing as a result of the new clarification for 23-24? Do you/will you ensure that the Apprenticeship Agreement has a sufficient buffer to cope with most learners who go beyond planned end date or have a delayed EPA? And what date do you use for any learners who go on a BIL - just the best guess based on when they are likely to return? Do you have a process in place to look at the above for each learner to ensure that an updated Agreement is obtained for any that go beyond existing dates? Thanks
I'd be interested to know what providers currently do and what they intend doing as a result of the new clarification for 23-24? Do you/will you ensure that the Apprenticeship Agreement has a suffi...
Ian Barrett commented,
It does seem ridiculous that we're supposed to accept self-declarations (and employers must have to do their own checks on Right to Work as Steveh says) yet we've had two auditors recently say that we must do ID checks on all learners regardless. Is everyone asking to see ID for all learners? We had assumed that the checks were only necessary for learners who didn't meet the UK national/3 years residency. P368.2 is ambiguous I think: 'Confirmation that you have seen the learner’s identity documents or immigration permission to verify their residency eligibility in line with Annex A. Confirmation that you are satisfied the learner is eligible for funding and (where necessary) where a learner’s permission to stay has expired you must hold evidence that an application to remain has been made'
It does seem ridiculous that we're supposed to accept self-declarations (and employers must have to do their own checks on Right to Work as Steveh says) yet we've had two auditors recently say that...
Ian Barrett commented,
Steve Hewitt this is great if true though we have been advised differently in the past regarding keeping the funding drawn down and so repay the funding currently. Would it make a difference if the learner has indicated they have passed the required level even if they haven't provided the exemption evidence? We have been told we can't claim funding for such learners and so are effectively delivering training and/or putting learners through exams for free in order to gain the evidence.
Steve Hewitt this is great if true though we have been advised differently in the past regarding keeping the funding drawn down and so repay the funding currently. Would it make a difference if the...
Ian Barrett commented,
My view is that more specifics are not essential and there's nothing in the guidance to indicate this is needed. We're in danger of adding bureaucracy here (and the guidance does refer to avoiding describing too much detail in case it becomes too bureaucratic) purely for the benefit of the auditors and at the expense of the learner experience.
My view is that more specifics are not essential and there's nothing in the guidance to indicate this is needed. We're in danger of adding bureaucracy here (and the guidance does refer to avoiding...