Universal Credit, working, failing validation

Home Forums Data issues Universal Credit, working, failing validation

This topic contains 11 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  SR 1 week, 2 days ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • melonroof
    Participant

    Hi, we are seeing an increase in learners on UC and working, so are recording them accordingly. However they are failing FIS validation as they are marked as employed but Fully Funded. (learnDelFamType_66) Is anyone else having this problem and how do you get around it?

    TIA
    Helen

     
    #412747

    Simon France
    Participant

    An employed person is co-funded unless they earn less than the low wage threshold determined by your funding body or doing one of the entitlement aims. If you are funded by the ESFA and their income is less than the threshold then you would put code 363 in the Learning Delivery Monitoring to indicate that.

    If you are not funded by the ESFA (like me…) then we have problems.

     
    #412750

    melonroof
    Participant

    Hmmmm yes… we are GLA.. I guess we need to start asking questions about income levels if on UC then? I guess they MUST be below the threshold to be on UC as well (London is £20k) And is it only employment income or would we include the UC benefit in the calculation…

     
    #412752

    Ruth CJ
    Participant

    EDIT: Below probably not relevant if you are devolved. It makes it much harder to support colleagues when so many are now following different rules.

    Are you recording the Benefit Status Indicator on the Employment History record? That would error if you didn’t record that.

    Simon – The definition of “unemployed” (and therefore fully fundable) does include people who “receive Universal Credit, and their earned income from employment (disregarding benefits) is less than £338 a month (learner is sole adult in their benefit claim) or £541 a month (learner has a joint benefit claim with their partner).” They don’t have to be “low wage”.

     
    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 2 days ago by  Ruth CJ.
    #412754

    Simon France
    Participant

    Hi @Ruth_CJ,

    These are learners who are employed but earn less than £17,550. They’re not on any benefits but the GMCA will fully-fund them. The ESFA do the same but with a lower income threshold. The LDM coded 363 is used to indicate these for ESFA funded learners.

     
    #412758

    Ruth CJ
    Participant

    Simon – It was just that @melonroof had said these students were on UC (so are on benefits), so I commented based on that fact.

    We’re fortunately not in a devolved area, so I haven’t had to get my head around another set of rules.

     
    #412761

    Simon France
    Participant

    Ah, I see, @Ruth_CJ. Yes, you’re right @melonroof would need to put in the Benefit Status.

    However, I think the validation rule is failing simply because the employment status is ‘Employed’ and there is no LDM 363. This would only apply to ESFA funded aims, though. If @melonroof is devolved then she has the same issue I have where LDM363 is not taken into account at all and it looks like we have to do some jiggery-pokery with the Other Funding Adjustment field.

     
    #412765

    melonroof
    Participant

    HI Ruth

    We are recording the benefit status as Universal Credit, the employment status as In Paid Employment, 31+ hours per week. I have just noticed there is no Length of Employment recorded – would this make a difference?

    Thanks

     
    #412767

    Ruth CJ
    Participant

    I doubt length of employment would cause this, I think it’s more likely something to do with you being in a devolved area. Since I know nothing about those rules, I don’t know though.

    Simon – We have UC students flagged as employed, BSI as UC, and without LDM 363, and they’re fine. We only use 363 for the Low Wage Learners that aren’t on UC (and so don’t have a BSI recorded).

     
    #412785

    steveh
    Participant

    Hi!

    It’s the EII that’s triggering it. if you go into the DEPTHS of the validation rules, we see that LearnDelFamType_66 has a bunch of exemptions, the key one here being:

    learners on active benefits (DD28 = Y)

    so when we go to the Derived sheet we find this key part of DD28:

    Set to Y if…
    or
    LearnerEmploymentStatus.EmpStat = 10 and (EmploymentStatusMonitoring.ESMType = EII and EmploymentStatusMonitoring.ESMCode = 2, 5 or 6) and (EmploymentStatusMonitoring.ESMType = BSI and EmploymentStatusMonitoring.ESMCode = 3 or 4),
    otherwise set to N

    So the validation rule says that learners on UC only count as being “on active benefits” if they’re working less than 20 hours a week. To be fair, I’m not sure how someone can be working 30+ hours and not be earning above the threshold in 156.3:

    156.3. receive Universal Credit, and their earned income from employment (disregarding benefits) is less than £338 a month (learner is sole adult in their benefit claim) or £541 a month (learner has a joint benefit claim with their partner)

     
    #412916

    melonroof
    Participant

    Thanks Steve, I will look into this.

     
    #412971

    SR
    Participant

    Hi I agree with Steve H. We have been trying to resolve these errors for our learners who are on Another state benefit/ universal credit and also in employment for over 20 hours. We have had to amend them to co-funded until we check their eligibility for low wage concession.

     
    #414250
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.