So we have had an e mail from the ESFA about withholding achievement payments if the contributions have not been paid by the employer.
This prompted me to do a quality check of our Employer information to find out where our problem lies!!
First Employer check – Our system has the employer as Small – Non Levy but the EDRS system number links this school to the council which is a Large Levy paying Employer.
I contacted the school to confirm details and to be honest I really dont think they knew!! They said they were small and had never paid the Levy!! In the next breath they said they were still council!! They also had no idea whate their companies house number was – as it was incorrect on the EDRS
Does anyone have a fail safe method of confirming if an Employer is
1. Small or Large
2. Levy or Non Levy
3. Number of Employees
I cant contact / change Information on the EDRS if I dont have it in black and White.July 17, 2018 at 12:46 pm #273245
Contact the Council and ask them.July 17, 2018 at 1:07 pm #273253
It is for the employer to know if they are a levy payer; unless they are and have an active account on AS then I assume you have to treat them as Co-Invested and collect 10%.
Bear in mind that EDRS no has no impact on the ILR funding. It is dependant on the ACT value – if ACT=1 (levy) then it will look on the AS system for matching agreements/learners. If they haven’t set up an agreement on App Service then no levy funding can be drawn down and they would be shown as errors in the Data Match Report. I don’t know if they automatically go on to Co-Invested at that point or are simply not funded ?July 17, 2018 at 1:26 pm #273257
Thank you for the responses but we cant understand why some of these learners are on the report – they are 16-18 / Small employer / Non-Levy so do not need to contribute and the report shows they should have contributed in certain periods.
One learner has 16.6666 against R02 only
Another has 11.11111 against R02 and R03 only
Another has entries for R10 and R11 for different amounts
This report is really confusingJuly 17, 2018 at 2:55 pm #273278
I thought this was a known issue, but it’s not on the Known Issues spreadsheet. I think this happens to many providers, I know we’ve got loads. It’s maddening, as I have trawl through all the records I know aren’t relevant. I prefer to use the Funding and Monitoring report 16, though that also contains small employers. I just ignore them. If you accidentally put someone in a return as not small, then fix it later, the reports don’t retrospectively remove any required co-investment from the months before you fixed it. We know they don’t owe it, so it just stays there.
As OFFS pointed out, ERNs are not used to calculate funding. Auditors have confirmed that a self declaration from the employer is fine.
I would check about that school though. We have some schools that are separate, and some schools that come under the council levy pot. they absolutely should know themselves, but perhaps try the council as Spats says.
Where the amounts are changing from month to month, are they levy payers? We’ve a got a few levy payers who had insufficient funds for a few months, and it keeps changing month to month as their levy pot goes up and down! Another time the payments change is when you get a large initial amount because the didn’t go in the ILR until a few months after they started, so the first payment is double/triple.July 18, 2018 at 4:27 pm #273510
Hi, sounds like they should be full ESFA funded, if the learner is 16-18 and with a ‘small’ employer ? Wasn’t aware of a fault with Hub reporting this but it’s perfectly possible !
I guess data things to check for the learner(s) concerned (or maybe double-check): Programme Aim ACT=2; LearnerEmploymentStatusType SEM=1 for the current employer (this is easily missed I think); and obviously that the age at start calculation works out.July 20, 2018 at 3:07 pm #273997
As Ruth correctly states, the co-investment reports are very unreliable and unfortunately trawling through the separate co-investment report is the best option available. Seems to be ignored as an issue now and providers are just having to double check everything themselves.July 25, 2018 at 5:19 pm #275072
Have you checked that you have added the SEM flag correctly to record that the apprenticeship is eligible as a 16-18 with a small employer?July 27, 2018 at 1:59 pm #275517
Many thanks for the assistance. Yes, these have the SEM flag. I have picked up on a number in the past where this was missed and updated accordingly. Unfortunately, due to the know issue surrounding this, those still appear. The remaining learners I cannot see any reason why they are being reported on the FAM16 report or the co-investment report.July 27, 2018 at 3:09 pm #275534
Is anyone still experiencing issues with the latest Contributions Report, I thought this had been fixed for R12 however we are still getting lots of 16-18 starts appearing on the report where the employer has less than 50 employees.August 17, 2018 at 10:43 am #280037
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.