Dean Cox
Finance Compliance Manager for an Apprenticeship Training Provider
Last activity
Member since
Votes
29
Subscriptions
35
Replies
Dean Cox commented,
In theory, can an apprenticeship be commercially funded FM99 for the period where DAS is not secured, and then negotiate the balance for the new remaining price from the month DAS was secured with FM36. Would this require a new set of ZPROG and AIM with TNP3 and TNP4. Or does this not work? Thanks.
In theory, can an apprenticeship be commercially funded FM99 for the period where DAS is not secured, and then negotiate the balance for the new remaining price from the month DAS was secured with ...
Dean Cox commented,
Hello, This should mean the day you have made the ILR submission is before a date you have used for learning actual end date for a learner. You can't have a date in advance. Hope this helps.
Hello, This should mean the day you have made the ILR submission is before a date you have used for learning actual end date for a learner. You can't have a date in advance. Hope this helps.
Dean Cox commented,
Thank you Steveh, we are not putting anyone on programme without the cohort being reserved prior, but I am told we cannot send for final approval (to make it live) until the learner has actually started. There is then difficulties in getting the employer to approve (so it is stuck in a datalock), but for the odd learner the cohort has disappeared altogether (so the employer is deleting them whether on purpose or in error). If these are non-levy and have not given permissions then it is difficult to secure again in the same or nearby month. We're unsure of a failsafe way to protect ourselves from these scenarios. Thanks.
Thank you Steveh, we are not putting anyone on programme without the cohort being reserved prior, but I am told we cannot send for final approval (to make it live) until the learner has actually st...
Dean Cox commented,
Thank you for your angle Steveh and for confirming Martin. We are struggling to get back to the figure that would put us as needs improvement, as our percentages are nowhere near the threshold, so it has to be over 250 learners past planned end date, but still struggling to get to that many learners from our own checks. Does that figure only relate those that have exceeded their planned learning end date in this funding year only, and would have to put up with the coloured rating (even if those under 180 days are subsequently completed), and would reset in the new funding year? Thanks.
Thank you for your angle Steveh and for confirming Martin. We are struggling to get back to the figure that would put us as needs improvement, as our percentages are nowhere near the threshold, so ...
Dean Cox commented,
Thanks Ruth Canham-James, to further confuse things, the employer is a levy payer. On the ESFA payment reports, the funds for the learner falls fully under co-investment (from the ESFA), as it would for those who are fully funded by the ESFA, however it lists the contract as levy. I can remove the Small Employer Waiver no problem, but I am unsure of the impact it has there as they would have levy funds secured on DAS anyway?
Thanks Ruth Canham-James, to further confuse things, the employer is a levy payer. On the ESFA payment reports, the funds for the learner falls fully under co-investment (from the ESFA), as it woul...
Dean Cox commented,
Chloe Hemmingsley thanks for this. When learning aims are only one day however, it pulls through on the PDSAT reports (and we were told to switch learners off the ILR in this scenario - this was for the programme aims and functional skills wasn't mentioned though), so there doesn't seem to be any way to completely clear it. Also, how do you anticipate any clawbacks with this scenario of aims/funds being changed in a previous funding year, would you do an EAS or will it be clawed back by ESFA at R14 reconciliation?
Chloe Hemmingsley thanks for this. When learning aims are only one day however, it pulls through on the PDSAT reports (and we were told to switch learners off the ILR in this scenario - this was fo...
Dean Cox commented,
Kelly Knights our scenario relates to L3+ apprentices who are required to be achieving L2 or above for functional skills. They are only taking the L2 exam and passing it, despite learning the level 1 and level 2 content. Thanks.
Kelly Knights our scenario relates to L3+ apprentices who are required to be achieving L2 or above for functional skills. They are only taking the L2 exam and passing it, despite learning the level...
Dean Cox commented,
Martin West As the apprenticeship practical period may not have started at that point, should the apprentice be on a standard minimum wage up until the point they start the apprenticeship, where they can then be on an apprentice minimum wage? Thanks.
Martin West As the apprenticeship practical period may not have started at that point, should the apprentice be on a standard minimum wage up until the point they start the apprenticeship, where th...
Dean Cox commented,
'Apprenticeship Financial Record' is missing. As you've returned the 'end point assessment organisation' ID, you also need to return the end point assessment financial details. Check apprenticeship financial record includes the end point assessment price. Having removed the SOF & Financial sections (to be blank), the error returning is regarding end point assessment, do we still have to return the EPA ID, or does it not matter as not funded through ESFA? Thanks.
'Apprenticeship Financial Record' is missing. As you've returned the 'end point assessment organisation' ID, you also need to return the end point assessment financial details. Check apprenticeship...
Dean Cox commented,
Does anything need to be included under Funding & Monitoring then if the 'ACT' is removed? Thanks.
Does anything need to be included under Funding & Monitoring then if the 'ACT' is removed? Thanks.