Errors – LDM 363

Home Forums Data issues Errors – LDM 363

This topic contains 6 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Steve Bowler 12 months ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author

  • dspeakman


    We have received notification of 11 errors in the ILR regarding the LDM 363 and this message.

    The information above shows you have recorded legal entitlement provision (GCSEs and/or functional skills) or level 3 qualifications. This provision is not in scope for the low wage trial because:
    • legal entitlement qualifications are always fully funded for eligible learners aged 19+ whether they are employed or not
    • the AEB fully funds first level 3s for adults aged 19-23

    We would be grateful if you could check your data and remove the low-wage trial LDM code (363) you have submitted by R08.

    I have checked the data and it all looks ok. Only one learner is under 24 and they have a previous level 6, all others are over 24 and are all working. Non of these quals are functional skills Maths or English, they are functional ICT and Childcare Quals (local flexibility). I can’t understand why we have received this from the ESFA, I have checked the table in the funding rules against each one and they qualify for co funding, they have been recorded as FFI 1 and LDM 363. Am I missing something?

    Thanks for any advice


    Martin West

    If you are sure the notification is incorrect you should report your findings back to the ESFA.
    Do they not include the learners and aim in the notification?




    No they didn’t include them, we only have 25 in total anyway. I was just wondering if anyone could see if I was missing a step. I will contact the ESFA





    You are not alone!!!

    We have had similar.

    We have asked for the ULNs now as I cannot identify the students either.
    Our 363s all look legit.

    All the best



    Hi all,

    We had this message this morning too!

    The issue we found was a learner who was completing functional skills (legal entitlement) had been coded as low wage.

    The low wage code wasn’t required as this learner would receive full funding regardless due to the qualifications being a legal entitlement.

    I hope this helps!


    Ceri Fishlock

    We’ve had the same too and ours all look OK.

    Its not particularly helpful sending the emails without a list of learners.


    Steve Bowler

    Yep we had the same email too with two learners on it. It included some funding values that I cannot match up with any learners and when I asked for the ULN or Learner Reference numbers I was informed that they couldn’t supply me with the ULN due to “high national learner volumes”


Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.