Forum Replies Created
You make a valid point i have removed the information.
As Martin has stated i have also noticed this. I really hope this will only apply from starts after the 1st August 2018.
This information needs to made available to providers and easily accessible on the DAS (maybe shown on the cohort page). It would be ridiculous to expect the provider to ring/chase each employer to get this identifier. Even more so to expect this to be backdated for all pre 2018 starts.
This is not in the the best interest of the employer or the provider.
Thanks Martin. I was of the same opinion
Thanks for this – couldn’t see the forest for the trees 🙂
Just for my sanity more than anything having read through this it looks like nothing major has changed and all the funding rules remain the same as this year. Do other concurr
As a side note – its a shame they are not as quick to publish the reports every month, as they are to send letters complaining what the provider hasn’t done.
Is now the the 22nd of the month and the BI reports are still not available.
Complete joke as always 🙂
- This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Matt Collishaw.
In that case the only other think i can think off is that the ACT Type record for the non levy learners in incorrectly set the ACT type 1.
The match report will only match data with the act type of 1. Non levy should have an ACT type of 2 and the data match will not be applied.
These will still show as not matching until the employer has approved the payments. If you have submitted your cohort for approval by the employer but they have not approved it, they will appear on the Data Match report with the error above.
If the employer approves the cohort before the R07 deadline, when we get the period end reports the data matching report contained within it should not have the errors
Just a update for this in case anyone has the following issue in the next week or so
Response from the service desk
Thank you for contacting the service desk to enquire about learning aim reference: 60059643 and the subsequent error triggering on FIS.
I have reported your concerns to our LARS Team who advise the “other” category has now been updated, this should be reflected in LARS by 08 March 2018.
Same issue here, While awaiting the promised report I have just been using a user defined field in oour MIS system to flag what month the payment was made. Using the monthly payment report to filter for the £500 in each month accordingly.
We also have noticed a few months were we were missing payments from the ESFA but the learner is showing on the MPR and have took the stance they will have to reconcile any missing payments at year end or in future months
Seemed odd to be so just wanted to get a real answer before i have the service desk saga.
To the service desk i go. Several times i’m sure 🙂
Regrading the Co-investment report.
1. As stated above the percentage collected does not work
2. We have apprentices that at fully fulled and have the SEM flag tick yet they are still showing in this report. I believe this has happened because the SEM flag was missed in a previous month this has been corrected yet they are still showing. The report should update as per the updated ILR. We are all human and all make mistakes 🙂
3.The report should calculate the ‘maximum/expected total 10% to be collected’ in the funding year based on the number of month between start and end date in a separate column for each learner. In addition to the total column we currently have that cumulatively adds every month. Some employers do not want to pay monthly, this is also very confusing to look it is a YTD total and not maximum/expected required 10% figure.
4. There should be ‘maximum/expected 10% total payments collected’ based on the same criteria of point 3 so these 2 columns can be easily reconciled
Thank you for taking the time to listen to all the feededback.
Just to add to the remittance and the ability to forecast funding as a provider. This is what I was told by the service desk in order to find out EFSA funding received/to come
‘There are a number of fields on the Apps Monthly Payment Report that will need to be discounted from the Total Payments column to establish how remittance has been calculated. Firstly, Employer Incentives will need to be removed from the Total Payments as Employer Incentives are paid under a separate piece of remittance. Provider Incentives are included as they are paid in relation to mainstream contracts. Employer / Provider Incentives are shown in column CB and CC for August, CU and CV for September, DN and DO for October and will be available in column EG and EI when all of Novembers reports are available.
Secondly, the Apps Monthly Payment Report may also include Employer Co-Investment Contributions in any particular month where insufficient funds have been identified in an Employers Levy account. These outstanding payments will then be broken down, in relation to the Funding Rules as 90% paid by ESFA and a further 10% contribution from the Employer and you will need to be claim this directly from the Employer and ensure this is recorded in the ILR when received.’
I’m sure you can understand expecting provides to do all of this every month is unacceptable there should be a column within the report that calculates the funding to date and year end funding or a totally separate report calculating funding to date and to come.
This would allow providers to forecast and submit funding claims and better financial planning for colleges as a whole. Any forecasting/planning we are expected to provide should have a report/tools available to help providers.
Some of these have already been metioned however it shows a list of ‘most wanted’ features we all would like
Is there a report that can be released to identify which incentive payments relate to which learner and their respective employer?
Would it be possible to receive a notification of when an employer ‘Stops’ an apprentice on their digital account And also, a date of when it took effect?
We have just enrolled an apprentice onto the DAS however it appears his ULN is already on the DAS site for another employer\provider. The message you receive tells you there is a duplicate but nothing else. a UKPRN should also be included in the message so this can be identified. as currently we have no information to go on
Just checked this morning still no sign – I guess seen as half of the reports we get now a days are incorrect they have decided to fix them by just not supplying any 🙂
I must submit my return after the deadline seen as everyone is equal in the new world! I Look forward to wasting more time checking today
I reported this to the service desk and got the usual useless response of this is on the known issue list.
An issue has been identified with the Apprenticeship Funding Calculation where it is incorrectly classifying learners as co-funded and reporting an expected employer contribution for learners who should be fully funded. This issue will appear on the Apprenticeships Monthly payments report.
This issue has been raised with our technical team as a defect and they are working on a fix.
I’m just glad I spotted this before we started invoicing small employers! for safety I am no longer using the co-investment report and instead using the monthly app report filtering out the is small employer flag and then filtering the co-investment columnNovember 21, 2017 at 9:30 am in reply to: Small employers appearing on Co Investment/app monthly payment report #216005
Thanks all for your reply s… I am lost for words 🙂October 30, 2017 at 12:49 pm in reply to: Small employers appearing on Co Investment/app monthly payment report #210417
James – you could post the sql here and do the job for them at leas then we will have a working version tomorrow 🙂 chips and cheese for me!
I take it that the ne version just released is not same? don’t really want to waste more time reinstalling the whole software again 🙂
I have just had to completely reinstall my FIS after trying to run an 17/18 ILR through it got stuck in an loop and crashed – Wouldn’t advise it 🙂
Thanks for that the part written ‘Our auditors are also aware of the revision to the text in the 2017/18 rules and what they should expect to see when they conduct an assurance visit.’ basically tells me that these will not be funded and the rules are expected to be followed
Would of been nice to know before the start of the year given the implications this will have.
I was aware of this however the latest one I can see on the SFS is May!
That’s great thanks.