Apps Monthly Payment report

Home Forums Data issues Apps Monthly Payment report

This topic contains 8 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Access 1 year ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author

  • MartynWright


    Does anybody know if there is a problem with April’s Apps Monthly Payment Report issued on Friday? We have some deductions that we were not expecting including some incentive payments taken back relating to learners whose records we have not changed.




    I am experiencing the same kind of issue – we have had payments stopped for some learners despite their records not changing and they are still live on DAS. I have had a look at the ‘known issues’ tab on the hub but can’t seem to find anything that would explain it…



    Hi Martyn,

    not sure if it helps but I have checked two separate contract monthly payments reports since issued last week and have found no problems.

    Best wishes,



    Martin West

    A known issue has been found with regard to incentive payments, and there is a change to learner circumstance which requires a new version of the learners Commitment. When 90 days of learning has occurred, an incentive payment of £1,000 is generated and paid to the provider.
    If the learner changes course (or any other instance which requires the creation a new commitment) this will start from the beginning of the following month, to prevent overlapping commitments.
    If the change of circumstance occurs in the same month that the incentive payment was due, instances have been found where the incentive payment is being clawed back the following month.
    This is due to the payment calculation looking at the original instance of the Commitment, and calculating that the number of days required in learning to claim the incentive payment was no longer sufficient, and thus clawing back the incentive payment incorrectly.



    Ben Mountney

    Same issue here. Not just incentives that are affected. OPPs are stopped/clawed back also. One of our incentives that has been reversed is from months ago and it has affect a good handful of learners on our data.




    We don’t seem to have any learners that would fall into the category Martin described. Could it be a registration issue? as we may have registered a learner late. Other than that, there may be amore general issue if other people are affected.



    Ben Mountney

    With regards to the OPPs, it appears to be only related to the report. Managed to reconcile my remittance by ignoring the claw backs expressed on the App Monthly Report and go with the expected OPPs/achievement payouts etc

    However, the reversed incentive (which was originally paid out in November) has definitely not been included with the remittance also. This learner was originally reported in September’s submission. There has been no changes to the data. This is the only incentive we have affected.

    Perhaps 2 separate issues?!


    Ben Mountney

    Also should mention, our learner is non-levy 16-18 so no co-investments required. Perhaps some of the above could be related to not recording the employer co-investments and thus achievement/Incentives withdrawn until the records are updated? Cannot recall if that is in place or not now but thought it was worth mentioning as one post above referred to the DAS.



    I posted about this last week:

    Since then I have also found this issue with incentive payments where we have learners that have transferred to us from other providers. Incentive payments were made to us to pass to employers back in October and they have only now decided to take them back from us.

    I raised the issue with the Data Service on Wednesday and called yesterday to ask for an update/when I would get a response. I was told that I can expect to wait longer than the normal 5 day response rate, and was essentially told that providers calling up to chase long outstanding incidents with them is further slowing them down(!).

    Those experiencing issues it might be worth checking the Personal Learning Records to see if the learners have been with any other training providers; I’m convinced this is where the discrepancies are coming from.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.