Ben James
Last activity
Member since
Votes
214
Subscriptions
342
Replies
Ben James commented,
Aaaahh the Steve Hewitt summoning spell Essentially, in almost all circumstances you're under no obligation to collect evidence of learner eligibility, only to verify you have seen it and, to some extent, specifically what you have seen. Learners will sign to self-declare and this is generally accepted. Residency is a little bit more complex, but if you haven't already I'd have a read of P362 of the Funding Rules for general eligibility, and P382 onwards for Residency. May be worth bearing in mind that the new rules are expected (I stress expected) by the end of this month, so it would be worth checking back then to see if there've been any updates re. residency, and how Brexit may have had an impact for learners starting in 21/22.
Aaaahh the Steve Hewitt summoning spell Essentially, in almost all circumstances you're under no obligation to collect evidence of learner eligibility, only to verify you have seen it and, to some ...
Ben James commented,
Can it please be Morgan Freeman narrating? Yeah, spoke to the ESFA about it yesterday and they suggested they "didn't think" that it just saying leave to remain was sufficient. Their response obviously filled me with complete confidence, but it at least seems to be the consensus opinion. I'll suggest it can either be privately funded or just, not go ahead.
Can it please be Morgan Freeman narrating? Yeah, spoke to the ESFA about it yesterday and they suggested they "didn't think" that it just saying leave to remain was sufficient. Their response obvi...
Ben James commented,
Re. the difference between 1 & 2 - I agree with your first suggestion. If the agreed upon number of hours at the start represented 25%, but they ended up completing 22%.. that fails the first question, but passes the second because it's less than the what was 'agreed' but more than the minimum. To your last question - no, I see no reason that you'd need a statement in that case. If the minimum number of hours was (for example) 2000, over 24 months.. and they completed all 2000, but over 18 months.. they've met the minimum requirement. The guidance that Steve and Martin have kindly provided covers instances where learners have completed early, and as a result have not been able to fulfil the number of hours which were based on the original planned duration. If the original number was based on 24 months, but they've completed after 18, it would be reasonable to assume that the actual hours would be roughly three quarters of the planned amount.. because the actual duration is only three quarters of what was planned.
Re. the difference between 1 & 2 - I agree with your first suggestion. If the agreed upon number of hours at the start represented 25%, but they ended up completing 22%.. that fails the first quest...
Ben James commented,
They're doing a Level 7 degree level apprenticeship whilst also teaching at the university (it's a pre-requisite of the job that all lecturers need to undertake this particular Academic Professional Apprenticeship). I don't just want to rely on the fact that the employer must have done all of the necessary checks..
They're doing a Level 7 degree level apprenticeship whilst also teaching at the university (it's a pre-requisite of the job that all lecturers need to undertake this particular Academic Professiona...
Ben James commented,
Thanks Martin West, that's useful. I guess it sounds like it would potentially be alright then? Despite the fact the learner has only been here for a little over a year, it sounds like the Global Talent visa kind of occupies the space between a Tier 1 and Tier 2? Would you recommend asking the candidate for that list of "what you can and cannot do with a Global Talent visa"?
Thanks Martin West, that's useful. I guess it sounds like it would potentially be alright then? Despite the fact the learner has only been here for a little over a year, it sounds like the Global T...
Ben James commented,
I almost tagged you in this post! Haha. Thank you sir! So in this instance then.. how might I proceed? This candidates BRP doesn't explicitly say whether it's discretionary, exceptional, or indefinite.. so would presumably be insufficient? Would the accompanying documentation it potentially comes with (never had one, so don't know) state whether it is in fact one of the 3 mentioned?
I almost tagged you in this post! Haha. Thank you sir! So in this instance then.. how might I proceed? This candidates BRP doesn't explicitly say whether it's discretionary, exceptional, or indefin...
Ben James commented,
We've had people take a break for very similar reasons before, and have had an auditor say this is fine. The guidance is deliberately liberal when it comes to 'personal reasons' for these kinds of situations. Providing you keep good records, follow the flow-chart, and can substantiate that all parties have agreed, you shouldn't come unstuck.
We've had people take a break for very similar reasons before, and have had an auditor say this is fine. The guidance is deliberately liberal when it comes to 'personal reasons' for these kinds of ...
Ben James commented,
We ask the candidates to secure a statement of comparability themselves, at their cost, as it’s their responsibility to prove their qualifications are valid. If you wanted to pay I’m sure that’s possible, but you’re under no obligation to. We’ve had some confirmed as compatible recently via a statement and they said they’d also recommend we ask the apprentice for the actual certificates as well, for our academic records.
We ask the candidates to secure a statement of comparability themselves, at their cost, as it’s their responsibility to prove their qualifications are valid. If you wanted to pay I’m sure that’s po...
Ben James commented,
Have you populated the ACT ‘to’ date? If so, what date have you used? Until the EPA is taken and the Achievement Date is known/added (at which point you should update the ACT ‘to’ date with this) it will need to match the Learning Actual End date
Have you populated the ACT ‘to’ date? If so, what date have you used? Until the EPA is taken and the Achievement Date is known/added (at which point you should update the ACT ‘to’ date with this) i...
Ben James commented,
To add to Martin's advice.. page 71/72 of the Funding Rules deals with this exact scenario so I'd have a look at that. Essentially, if all parties agree it materially affects the training plan, update documentation but leave ILR alone unless it was a data error.
To add to Martin's advice.. page 71/72 of the Funding Rules deals with this exact scenario so I'd have a look at that. Essentially, if all parties agree it materially affects the training plan, upd...