Becky O'Brien
Last activity
Member since
Votes
3
Subscriptions
21
Replies
Becky O'Brien commented,
Did the OPPs that were clawed back in R08 when the error was made re-appear? If so, then that would point toward there being an additional reason for lack of payment of the achievement. I would then be looking to see if there is a mismatch, or, if there were non-governmental contributions due, were they all paid and recorded as paid in the ILR.
Did the OPPs that were clawed back in R08 when the error was made re-appear? If so, then that would point toward there being an additional reason for lack of payment of the achievement. I would the...
Becky O'Brien commented,
If they have already started both (which is my understanding), then I would put the one they have stopped attending on break, from the last time they did learning, not the start date, and restart once they've completed the other subject. Only put on break with the start date if they did not attend at all AND the start date is in a previous funding year. Where we stagger the start of FS, we make sure the training plan has both set of dates. We have a "pre-enrolled" status in our system, so staff are aware that that both are needed, but that one has not started yet. The one starting latest is made "active" and goes into the ILR once the learning has actually started. The TP should be updated if they start this earlier or later than originally planned. This results in us proving that we have 1) planned for both, 2) not drawn down funding for the second aim before they actually started. This works for us, but I understand that it might not work for all depending in your internal processes.
If they have already started both (which is my understanding), then I would put the one they have stopped attending on break, from the last time they did learning, not the start date, and restart o...
Becky O'Brien commented,
As Steve has said, the EPA gets paid whenever it takes place. The only time you won't get paid is if you miss recording an achievement in the funding year it occurred: e.g. recording someone with a May 24 achievement date (part of 23-24) in 24-25 data.
As Steve has said, the EPA gets paid whenever it takes place. The only time you won't get paid is if you miss recording an achievement in the funding year it occurred: e.g. recording someone with a...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Steve Hewitt I agree, but am also not surprised at the lack of updated rules. I have to say a press release is a step above how they've communicated other changes. I'm thinking of the scrapping of the register of EPA orgs that we only discovered by trying to use it, or by reading an article in FE Week.
Steve Hewitt I agree, but am also not surprised at the lack of updated rules. I have to say a press release is a step above how they've communicated other changes. I'm thinking of the scrapping of ...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Becky O'Brien commented,
I'd say yes, although not sure what that will do to your payments as the "achievement" payment will have been paid already. Perhaps ask the apprenticeship service? We only record fails when we know the learner is not going to resit and the fail is the final result so I've not experienced this scenario.
I'd say yes, although not sure what that will do to your payments as the "achievement" payment will have been paid already. Perhaps ask the apprenticeship service? We only record fails when we know...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Levy paying employers should be able to add them with any date as they don't need to reserve funds. Non-levy is an issue as you have described. The only way at this point to add them without changing the start date is to use a levy transfer, as long as the levy transfer sending employer is happy with back dating. Recommend you don't put them in your ILR if possible until DAS issues resolved as we aren't meant to have apprentices who are coded as funded, for whom we are actually not receiving funding.
Levy paying employers should be able to add them with any date as they don't need to reserve funds. Non-levy is an issue as you have described. The only way at this point to add them without changi...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Do you mean additional payment? Incentives haven't been active for years. If so, then yes. If they are 16-18, then the only criteria for eligibility is their age. Eligibility criteria 99. The provider and the employer will receive an additional £1,000 payment towards the additional cost associated with training if, at the start of the apprenticeship training, the apprentice is: 99.1. Aged between 16 and 18 years old (or 15 years of age if the apprentice’s 16th birthday is between the last Friday of June and 31 August); or 99.2. Aged between 19 and 24 years old and has either an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan provided by their local authority and / or has been in the care of their local authority as defined in paragraph 101.2.
Do you mean additional payment? Incentives haven't been active for years. If so, then yes. If they are 16-18, then the only criteria for eligibility is their age. Eligibility criteria99. The pro...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Ruth Canham-James Agree that the Spec is most likely the document that incorrect for exactly the reason you've stated here, and that it's just not consistent with what they've required for adults for the last X years. Likely they removed FM10 and forgot to replace it with FM11. I have contacted the ESFA and also recommended that our in-house systems support team contact the external system provider.
Ruth Canham-James Agree that the Spec is most likely the document that incorrect for exactly the reason you've stated here, and that it's just not consistent with what they've required for adults f...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Yes, we were getting this. Our own Systems team advised that "Tribal haven’t update the procedure that does the planned hour calculation to include the new FMs", which is what Graham Knight has said too. Our team were able to update the procedure themselves, so we have it working again, and they have reported it to Tribal too, so hopefully you'll get it fixed soon.
Yes, we were getting this. Our own Systems team advised that "Tribal haven’t update the procedure that does the planned hour calculation to include the new FMs", which is what Graham Knight has sai...