Long story short, a learner who started in June 2019 was not recorded on our ILR due to technical issues. What are people’s thoughts on how we would now enter this onto the ILR now? We have having a slight dispute in our office..
1) Record the learner with their actual start date of June 2019 and ‘hope’ we receive funding from August 2019 onward (in line with the start of the new contract year)
2) Record the learner with a revised start date of at least 01/08/2019, ensuring that all paperwork reflects this and that all parties have agreed to the date adjustment
This topic was modified 6 months ago by Ben James.
definitely 1. can’t see it being an issue to generate funding from August.
the thing with 2. is you should really reduce the price to reflect the two months of learning in June and July, even though you weren’t paid for it and if it’s a 13 month programme it’s going to get *messy*…
Cheers Steve. My thought was initially 1 as well, but it only takes one person in the office to disagree with you to make you question yourself! It’s an unfortunate situation, but we’re just going to have to eat the fact that we’ve lost a couple of months worth of funding.
Maybe it will encourage our business to invest in some better systems.. but similarly, maybe pigs will also fly.
Agree with Steve. I recommend reading through the five “Data management principles for ILR completion” on pages 17-18 of the Provider Support Manual. I think they get overlooked a lot, as people go for the actual rules, but they’re really helpful. I like to remind some of our curriculum staff of these when they’re submitting paperwork really late. One of the statements is;
The data you record on the ILR must accurately reflect the journey for the learner and what has happened. Inaccurate information must never be entered even where it is perceived that this would result in a more equitable claim for funding or accurate record of performance.
So, always record the date they really started, even if you lose some money as a result.
Option 1 is honest and accurate and you can’t get into trouble for it. Option 2 is bending the truth and could come back and bite you. I don’t know whether you have to worry about minimum duration, but option 2 could also cause a problem there.
Now just to slightly disagree with my own arguments, when did they start in June? If the first then just go with it, but if the 27th, say, then you *might* be able to say that they didn’t properly start until 1st July and that way not sacrifice June’s payment – just a thought.