Ben James
Last activity
Member since
Votes
214
Subscriptions
342
Replies
Ben James commented,
Thank for your response Melissa Haase! The Standard in question only has 1 component aim, which is a degree - so the planned end date of this aim is effectively the planned end date of all scheduled learning. If I've understood you correctly, your opinion would therefore be that the PED of the Programme Aim should coincide with the PED of this (the only) component?
Thank for your response Melissa Haase! The Standard in question only has 1 component aim, which is a degree - so the planned end date of this aim is effectively the planned end date of all schedule...
Ben James commented,
Always of benefit to hear from Mr Residency himself! Teamwork truly does make the dream work, or so I hear
Always of benefit to hear from Mr Residency himself! Teamwork truly does make the dream work, or so I hear
Ben James commented,
That’s correct, yes (amongst the other types of exemptions from the 3 year residency rule covered in Annex A). There are a lot of permutations, but generally speaking if your learner has permission to live in the UK (in the form of leave to remain, right of abode, settled status etc.) and has been ordinarily resident for the last 3 years.. you’re generally fine. If they’ve not been ordinarily resident for 3 years, it’s much stickier as I’m sure Steve would agree, and you’ll need to refer to the exemptions list. If the exemptions list doesn’t give you the information you need, I’d suggest contacting the home office via the following link - https://www.gov.uk/contact-ukvi-inside-outside-uk
That’s correct, yes (amongst the other types of exemptions from the 3 year residency rule covered in Annex A). There are a lot of permutations, but generally speaking if your learner has permissio...
Ben James commented,
This thread discussed what to do if a learner changes employer during a break as people weren't 100% sure, and the service desk advised that you'd still need to withdraw them even if you knew there was a new employer. Based on this, I'd suggest you probably need to do the same.
This thread discussed what to do if a learner changes employer during a break as people weren't 100% sure, and the service desk advised that you'd still need to withdraw them even if you knew there...
Ben James commented,
I'd check everything as Martin has suggested in case it's something odd like the aim refs have been incorrectly overwritten because the learner changed qual, however by the sounds of it the aim(s) were reported as live/continuing at R14, but potentially shouldn't have been. I imagine what has happened is their termination dates are probably in the old contract, but weren't actually processed until after R14 because of a delay of some kind? If so, this will be the reason for the error.
I'd check everything as Martin has suggested in case it's something odd like the aim refs have been incorrectly overwritten because the learner changed qual, however by the sounds of it the aim(s) ...
Ben James commented,
It's come up a few times previously on FEConnect but I've not come across a definitive ruling from the ESFA. I've engaged with them on it in the past, and again a few days ago to which they've said it's been escalated (again) to their technical team and would let me know. I guess it depends on the robustness of the language within the agreement, but if it's explicit and the Employer has signed it, it's hard to imagine it not being enforceable. Your financial problems would be "solved", but you'd still suffer the hit on your success rates unfortunately.
It's come up a few times previously on FEConnect but I've not come across a definitive ruling from the ESFA. I've engaged with them on it in the past, and again a few days ago to which they've said...
Ben James commented,
Completely understand, and actually I'm sure if you explain it that way to the Employer they're likely to agree as well. In my experience they want DAS administration to be as easy as possible. The overall financial obligation on their part is not going to change and you are incurring some degree of excess administration so shifting the 'money saved' from the revised EPA to the training cost isn't wholly unreasonable - I'm just not sure if an auditor would see it that way if there hadn't been any Employer consultation. Similarly, I imagine they'd probably frown upon you having agreed to charge the Employer 'x' amount at the outset to cover training and EPA costs (granted the split isn't usually disclosed).. but then after having been notified of a reduced cost by the EPAO, failing to make them aware/pocketing the difference, which will almost certainly happen if you don't revise the costs and therefore your ILR/DAS doesn't reflect a change.
Completely understand, and actually I'm sure if you explain it that way to the Employer they're likely to agree as well. In my experience they want DAS administration to be as easy as possible. The...
Ben James commented,
You'll need to add a new TNP2 line with the date the price was re-negotiated (guidance). Let's say the EPAO told you on 25/06/2021 that the new price has gone from 1000 to 500, the ILR would look something like this; Original price records; TNP1 - 01/08/2020 - 10000 TNP2 - 01/08/2020 - 1000 After new price has been negotiated; TNP1 - 01/08/2020 - 10000 TNP2 - 01/08/2020 - 1000 TNP2 - 25/06/2021 - 500 As far as DAS is concerned, this will trigger a DLOCK as the overall cost will be reduced, at which point you can ask the Employer to adjust the price accordingly
You'll need to add a new TNP2 line with the date the price was re-negotiated (guidance). Let's say the EPAO told you on 25/06/2021 that the new price has gone from 1000 to 500, the ILR would look s...
Ben James commented,
You'd want to add a new TNP2 line with the date the price was re-negotiated (guidance). For example; Original price records; TNP1 - 01/08/2020 - 10000 TNP2 - 01/08/2020 - 700 After renegotiation; TNP1 - 01/08/2020 - 10000 TNP2 - 01/08/2020 - 700 TNP2 - 25/06/2021 - 650 Regarding increasing the cost of the training price, providing that's agreed with the employer and it doesn't exceed the funding band maximum, there's no reason you couldn't - it would definitely save DLOCK headaches, but you'd need to confirm with them and then add a new TNP1 line in the same way as the new TNP2 has been above. As to whether you should implement this on existing learner records or simply apply the new price going forward, I would suggest if this is what the EPAO is charging then it makes sense for you to adjust the ILRs accordingly.
You'd want to add a new TNP2 line with the date the price was re-negotiated (guidance). For example; Original price records; TNP1 - 01/08/2020 - 10000 TNP2 - 01/08/2020 - 700 After renegotiation; T...
Ben James commented,
Figures I suppose! Any thoughts on how you think they might work it? Or how you might want it to work? Seems like the same potential issues are still present, i.e. the delivery of the EPA is somewhat out of our control, but basing it simply off of when they reach gateway seems to be slightly unavailing because it isn't really a measure of success
Figures I suppose! Any thoughts on how you think they might work it? Or how you might want it to work? Seems like the same potential issues are still present, i.e. the delivery of the EPA is somewh...