Forum Replies Created
We’re the same – its been on and off all day, our record is over 40 minutes for a file to be submitted and produce an error.
@Apprenticeship Service Management – manage your apprentices is offline again. We had these same issues when the Hub was introduced a few years ago. Has the additional capacity been implemented yet?
Employers are responsible for retaining copies of identification documents under right to work checks, not training organisations.
It doesn’t state anywhere in the rules, as far as i am aware, that you have to be able to provide copies of ID documents. The only time you are obliged to hold physical evidence is when the individual is applying for a renewal of an expired permission to stay.
Passport and NI number are the preference with a backup being the birth certificate alongside written confirmation that the apprentice meets the residency requirements.
As i say, our audit was 2016 but the fundamentals of eligibility haven’t changed since then.
You shouldn’t need to – if the apprentice is being funded through the digital account then there wouldn’t be payments to record.
The only instance i can see where this wouldn’t be the case is if the employer runs out of levy funds and you need to charge them 10% or 5% contribution – if that happens you’d need to record the payment.
Our approach (audited in 2016) is to record details of the following:
– confirmation apprentice meets 3 year residency requirements
– confirmation of ID (type, number and expiry date) and NI number
– home address
Additionally, the fact they are employed from day one gives assurances on right to work.
Hope that’s useful,
Thanks Ruth – i suspected that was the case, as with many things! It’s one of those situations where we have made every attempt to obtain the co-investment but now have nowhere to go.
Those are the same bits of the rules i’d referred to and, like you, i left them without being clear on whether this would result in an automatic clawback.
Appreciated.October 2, 2019 at 5:07 pm in reply to: Employer contribution due from employer which has stopped trading #403425
We’re okay with that aspect, the issue i currently have is the employer co-investment is showing as outstanding on the period end reports and, without them being in a position to pay, the only option i currently see is that we won’t be entitled to payment for the time the apprentice was on programme as the 10% contribution from the employer is missing.October 2, 2019 at 4:32 pm in reply to: Employer contribution due from employer which has stopped trading #403417
Still no update and now very overdue…
Ah, fair point. I can’t say I’ve tried it myself so good to know.
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by darrenvidler.
Not the full apprenticeship, no. The guidance suggests stopping the aim at 1st August and adding a new aim for the same learning aim with a start date of the 1st of August – it then details that, for apprenticeships, a start date of 2nd August for the new aim would be acceptable.
For apprenticeships my understanding is that you can set the start date of the new aim to 2nd August and code it as a restart.
• Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?
No – we are currently challenged on planned OTJ hours vs actual OTJ hours in the event of an agency audit which makes sense. The delivery of OTJ hours can be spread throughout a programme or be in bulk so reporting on a monthly basis doesn’t necessarily give the agency any real confidence that the required hours are actually being delivered. The value of this field is, therefore, minimal.
• Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?
Yes – we have systems in place to log planned and actual OTJ hours but this isn’t easily pulled onto the ILR and would likely require significant manual effort.
• How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?
It is as accurate as the individual entering the value allows it to be. There will always be human error as long as the values are collated manually.September 16, 2019 at 10:55 am in reply to: Consultation on possible 2020/21 ILR change – Off the job training actual hours #399107
Yes, the whole site seems to be down this time…
Agree with Ruth’s logic – that’s certainly how we use the field.
Is anyone else receiving errors when trying to add to/edit cohorts again today? We’re seeing a “page not found” error which is different to the last time the system wasn’t working.
Thanks Martin, appreciated.August 8, 2019 at 10:12 am in reply to: Recording a learner with an unknown EPA / EPA price #388010
Would we still expect to see a DLOCK in this instance? I believe the appropriate one is DLOCK07 (mismatch in total price)?
Appreciate the quick response,
DarrenAugust 8, 2019 at 10:04 am in reply to: Recording a learner with an unknown EPA / EPA price #387996
Seems to be working again this morning…
Also erroring for us now despite having been fixed previously. I’ve logged it with them as well.
The start date of an apprenticeship is the first day of evidenced learning on the apprenticeship.
I raised this issue with the agency a few weeks ago. They advised that they were aware of an issue on their side and were hoping to have it resolved prior to the new error being introduced – clearly that hasn’t happened.
May be worth raising with them directly.
Could you remove the EPA / TNP2 records from your ILR data until such time as an EPA organisation is approved?
We’ve currently got a query in with C&G to see if they will consider releasing a formal report in line with other EPAOs rather than just the one liner on the candidate’s transcript.
A waiting game unfortunately but i don’t see a reason for the current C&G evidence being rejected at audit.
Ah, i see.
I had a quick look on the page for this particular standard and it refers to both the ARB and RIBA. Unfortunately i can’t see anything further telling you which body you need to be approved by. I’ve included the link to the standard below:July 22, 2019 at 4:41 pm in reply to: Funding rules: approval from an associated regulatory body #383585