Becky O'Brien
Last activity
Member since
Votes
3
Subscriptions
43
Replies
Becky O'Brien commented,
Ryan Wiseman (sorry there are 4 profiles with that name, so if this is wrong I can't tell) To some extent you would look at the rules when they started, although I think I'd apply the need for a statement to all finishing early and with less than the full planned hours who started before 25/26 to be safe. 25/26 rules in this area can't apply backwards as there has been a fundamental change in how OTJ is calculated. No, you do not have to give back funding. You just need to have on file a record of the difference between the planned and actual, and the reason why they are different. It's not like a Skills Scan.
Ryan Wiseman (sorry there are 4 profiles with that name, so if this is wrong I can't tell) To some extent you would look at the rules when they started, although I think I'd apply the need for a st...
Becky O'Brien commented,
I've gone through the guidance in detail previous and wrote up guidance (specific to our org so can't share it all). What I think *may* be correct is.... If no event has taken place and the learner did not withdraw, but they finished recently: the programme aim must be set as 1, 8, with no actual end date. The Skills Bootcamp specific non-reg aim must be set as 2,8 The component aims must be set to a closed status as appropriate Then.... if 6 months after the latest component aim learning (not planned) end date there has been no event: Programme aim: actual end date = same as the latest dated component aim, aim status 2, 3 Skills Bootcamp non-reg: aim status 2,3 (achieved is mentioned as an option, but elsewhere it indicates that should only be used if there has been an event) I'm not 100% sure if this is correct, but it's what we're doing for now until we're told it's wrong!
I've gone through the guidance in detail previous and wrote up guidance (specific to our org so can't share it all). What I think *may* be correct is.... If no event has taken place and the learn...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Steve Hewitt Thank you. I'll show the person I'm going to be discussing this with your reply. If we do chose option 2 we'd of course document what happened and why we've done this. Absolutely would not dream of applying this across multiple apprentices!
Steve Hewitt Thank you. I'll show the person I'm going to be discussing this with your reply. If we do chose option 2 we'd of course document what happened and why we've done this. Absolutely would...
Becky O'Brien commented,
100% agree with the points about search results and DfE staff being present.
100% agree with the points about search results and DfE staff being present.
Becky O'Brien commented,
Thanks Steve Hewitt. It's one of those were I was confident I was right, but I've been confident before and wrong so thought it worth asking for some opinions. I do think they should have 2 reports. One for pre-25/26 starts where their nominal minimum hours calculation would apply and those starting from 25/26 where the focus would just be "Is this reduced figure due to RPL, and if so, is it sufficiently evidenced"? I'll contact KPMG via the DSAT helpdesk and see if they have anything to say about it, but will relax concerning our two 100% legitimate RPL starts.
Thanks Steve Hewitt. It's one of those were I was confident I was right, but I've been confident before and wrong so thought it worth asking for some opinions. I do think they should have 2 reports...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Ruth Canham-James, a mix of employer/DFE perhaps could be an option. Would be interesting to see if the DFE would agree. I would also suggest that the employer only agreeing to pay the actual EPA costs, could be taken as "unwilling to pay", if that isn't an acceptable sum for the training provider, and that therefore the full 20% could be requested from the DFE, with the employer not paying anything.
Ruth Canham-James, a mix of employer/DFE perhaps could be an option. Would be interesting to see if the DFE would agree. I would also suggest that the employer only agreeing to pay the actual EPA c...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Absolutely agree with Ruth, here. You may have to explain how the funding works to the employer, but hopefully they will agree to fund everything remaining. If not, perhaps you could apply to the DFE for them to fund it, under the condition of "employer unwilling to fund the completion".
Absolutely agree with Ruth, here. You may have to explain how the funding works to the employer, but hopefully they will agree to fund everything remaining. If not, perhaps you could apply to the ...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Steve is correct. The FIS report will give you location of the error that is causing the file to be mal-formed.
Steve is correct. The FIS report will give you location of the error that is causing the file to be mal-formed.
Becky O'Brien commented,
We've been successful in gaining authorisation for the final payment to be claimed via EAS for at least 3 apprentices. At least 1, possibly 2 have also achieved and been claimed. Ruth Canham-James One of them started in 20/21 (!!!), and so I specifically asked the Apprenticeship helpdesk about whether we could claim them, expecting the answer to be no. However, I was told we could, and we did receive the authorisation (They've not achieved yet, so we've not done the EAS claim). To conclude - it's worth at least trying to exercise this clause no matter when they started, as despite what we were told at the time, it does appear possible to claim them.
We've been successful in gaining authorisation for the final payment to be claimed via EAS for at least 3 apprentices. At least 1, possibly 2 have also achieved and been claimed. Ruth Canham-James ...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Ruth Canham-James Steve Hewitt Thank you both for your input. I will have a further think, and see what the auditors we engage with think.
Ruth Canham-James Steve Hewitt Thank you both for your input. I will have a further think, and see what the auditors we engage with think.