Jevon Davies

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Jevon Davies
    Participant

    We have recently come across the same situation and have yet to hear anything back from the ESFA.

    Hoping we might be able to get some useful information!

     
    in reply to: Change of Employer after gateway date #429271

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    Just a brief update – we haven’t tried out the following yet. Latest response from the Service Desk:

    I have been in consultation with our data team – we have found a slight anomaly. Where you record a new TNP 2 price only, that raises the overall price, this will cause an error. I suggest that you update both the TNP 1 and 2 (making only a slight change to the TNP 1 – it can be as little as £1) – both of these records will need to be dated after the start date and during the 18/19 funding year.
    This should resolve the Dlock errors you are experiencing.

    So, basically, to fix it you have to report incorrect figures… We’re going to give it a go and keep the email on file but not entirely comfortable doing so!

    *edit* I should note that the overall price is actually being reduced, not raised. I’m not sure if that has any relevence so probably going to go back to clarify… *edit*

     
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Jevon Davies.
    in reply to: Data Mismatch report #362197

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    We’ve been having a similiar problem that has been dragging back to January.

    We had a number of learners where the EPA cost had been less than expected so we did a TNP2 to show this, expecting the DAS to notice and make the changes as required. However, as with yourselves, they showed up on the Mismatch report but no such luck on the DAS.

    We esculated to the Service Desk who offered a few different options but none of them fixed it.

    They esculated it to the Technical Team who have come back today (over a month later) advising, for the short term, to change it back to the original values so it will go through in P8 and await further guidance…

    So, into the 4th month, still no further forward from where we started!

     
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Jevon Davies.
    in reply to: Data Mismatch report #361901

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    We have a similar problem but purely with DLOCK_07 issues.

    Basically, finished a L2 framework with ourselves and has now signed up with another company for a L3 framework. Finished with us on the 10th August. Started with them 25th August and I was told point blank that they could not end one and start another in the same month as it “confuses the system”.

    To make matters worse, we were waiting on IQA so missed the P2 cutoff with the completion so technically shows as two live records… As P3 is frozen until P14 is closed there is little we can do to rectify this.

    I’ve asked for what the implications/solution to this particular instance is and it has gone very, very quiet and I can’t get an answer from anyone.

    I thought I’d seen all different variations of issues with the DAS but apparently there are still many more out there to find.

     
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by  Jevon Davies.
    in reply to: Transferred learner DLOCK errors #298023

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    I can confirm that the rule has been changed to a warning now which is a relief!

    No acknowledgement from the Service Desk that it hadn’t been switched over previously, though…

     
    in reply to: EPAOrgID_01? #293205

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    Just a small update.

    I’ve had the following response: “What you are getting are warnings. This rule has been changed to a warning due to incomplete reference data. Once this issue has been rectified, this rule will reject invalid data that may previously have passed without failing validation.”

    I’d already done another export and upload and can confirm that these are definitely still reporting as errors. I’ve gone back, as politely as I can, to suggest that the rule may have meant to have been changed but seemingly hasn’t?

    I’ll update if I get anything else of interest…

     
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by  Jevon Davies.
    in reply to: EPAOrgID_01? #292918

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    Thanks for the replies so far.

    We use PICS and have set the EPAO in the Programme Aim.

    Martin – I must admit I didn’t think to check the Known Issues… My issue at the moment is I have 47 learners triggering the warning where the data is correct but they are still being returned as Errors, not Warnings. I did a fresh upload yesterday to check but will double check on this.

    I am reluctant to remove the EPAO but having money stopped for nearly 50 learners isn’t going to sit well with SMT!

    Thanks
    Jevon

     
    in reply to: EPAOrgID_01? #292868

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    We also had this email and were equally puzzled how we were actually meant to be able to check what is seemingly being asked. We never process a learner without a NI in the valid format unless they genuinely haven’t received one yet.

    I’m sure you probably already have, but it might be worth checking your data against the ILR specification – there are certain letters that can’t be used in certain places for example.

    The only thing I can imagine is where they cannot match the NI provided with the PAYE system. If this is the case how are we meant to do this?

    We are also waiting to hear back from the Data Service as, when we rang them yesterday, they genuinely had no idea what email we were talking about despite the fact the email states to get in touch with the Service Desk…

     
    in reply to: Funding and Monitoring: National Insurance Numbers #255867

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    I had countless problems with this and I’ve found that FIS will simply not work properly as intended unless you have full Administrator Rights on the machine.

    I tested this with a colleagues machine and, sure enough, with non-admin rights FIS would not load past the initial settings screen. I had to enable the admin rights, completely remove SQL Server and FIS on the machine, and start the process all over.

    It’s something that would be nice if they could somehow allow for network security access consideration as the majority of users I’d imagine will be on networks with some form of access restrictions?

    *Edit: Or, perhaps, release a technical guide to explain the differing varients for system administrators? It had myself and our external ICT support scratching our heads for quite some time. PDSAT doesn’t appear to have these problems from what I’ve seen?

     
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Jevon Davies.
    in reply to: FIS Setup Issues #239135

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    Hi Rachel

    I’ve been using the file “PFR Main Occupancy Report YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS.csv” in the zipped file and it seems to be working ok.

    Thanks
    Jevon

     
    in reply to: Indicative PFR Occupancy Report 15/16 #18542

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    Second edit (!)

    There seems to be a few where a learner has completed elements (Functional Skills, for the most part) as part of a Framework but is now flagging as the R77 rule. Some of these were completed as far back as the 13/14 Contract Year so it seems a little strange to be asking for this information now.

    Is my understanding correct from Mark’s post above that this shouldn’t be reporting? I’m anxious to start adding Destination records if they are not strictly needed!

     
    in reply to: R77 in Comp 8 not fully corrected #18396

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    Hi Beverley

    This isn’t so much an issue of the aim being valid, it’s to do with the validity in the Framework pathway itself. Looking under the 508 framework (Pathway 1) on LARS in the “Related Learning Aims” page, the 50063558 has an effective to date of 29/06/2015. Due to this if the learners start date is after that it just won’t pass the data validation.

    We’ve had this problem in the past and the only way to get around it is to work towards the new aim. As you’ve stated, there is often a delay between the update on the LARS and the AO actually getting the new qualification up and running. It’s frustrating but there is unfortunately little you can do.

    Thanks
    Jevon

     
    in reply to: Error Msg #16627

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    We’ve had this problem with a few different subcontractors, notably all of these records were from ILR records.

    I just have a slight concern that it may be that the award date was populated from the now defunct Achievement date which, as far as I’m aware, is no longer collected? If this is a case it’s going to be a very large problem moving forward.

    Either way, we’ve had to lean towards cautious and advise the providers to ensure the learners sit the test again.

     
    in reply to: ACE Rejections #16313

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    No problem – glad I could help!

     
    in reply to: ILR Validation – computer says 'No' #12107

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    Hi Mark

    Apologies, should have looked back at the email trail – was writing from memory and it’s been a rather long couple of months!

    Our problem was caused by two seperate Learner Destination Progression records using the same ULIN number (Same learner, had progressed onto a different programme with a different subcontractor) where the ULN had differed. Turns out the learner had a duplicate record on the LRS so was sorted fairly promptly.

    The main issue with this was that there was no Validation in place to identify this at the time – It was only when Trevor looked into it further that the issue came apparent. I don’t know if any new routines are in place now to report on this now, though.

    Hopefully this helps rule out at least one potential issue.

    Thanks
    Jevon

     
    in reply to: ILR Validation – computer says 'No' #12102

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    Hi Simon

    I had a problem similar to this a couple of months ago and, generally, if the FIS fails to get past the XML check the Hub will also throw it out.

    My particular problem came down to a couple of Learner Destination & Progression records where the ULN did not match the parent ILR record – we had change the ILR when the original number entered failed to pass the validation routines..

    So, in short, if you do have any Progression records I’d have quick check of those for any anomalies.

    Hope this helps a little!

     
    in reply to: ILR Validation – computer says 'No' #12096

    Jevon Davies
    Participant

    Hi Martin,

    Thanks for the response. I was selecting the Import – the actual error happened to be a coding issue which wasn’t exactly forthcoming..

    We had a learner that has previously done a programme with one of our Subcontractors but has moved onto another qual with a different Subcontractor. The issue was to do with the Destination monitoring picking up two differing LRS codes for the same learner. It was only a switched number on the one dataset but caused havoc apparently!

    I’ve corrected the LRS number to match and it now validates correctly. Apparently it is a new validation routine that hasn’t officially been released yet so the software didn’t exactly know how to handle it. Should be in the next release apparently, though.

    Thanks again for the suggestion!

     
    in reply to: "Execute Copy scripts from Pre Validation Schema" Error #10940
Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)