NinaManEx

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • NinaManEx
    Participant

    Thank You Ruth for a comprehensive summary – matches my understand completely.

    I agree I would also like clarification or further information about why we are not reporting BIL’s in March R08 and waiting until R09.

    Please let me know if you hear a reply.

    For those looking for the guidance: seehere

    And the article from the Misister for Apprenticeships and Skills here

     
    in reply to: Training suspended, any alternative to Break in Learning #435945

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    I See. It is positive news that the intention eventually will be made directly to the EPAO’s from the DAS.

    Its a shame that the Employer won’t have the same price brokerage deals but it is better than the provider having to be a transaction station.

     
    in reply to: Non-Levy Reserved funding DAS accounts #422172

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Totally agree, i just think they’ve over complicated the whole process by adding in the DAS field, then essentially not giving them brokerage to make direct payments to EPAO’s. To see what your paying to the EPAO then it being actually paid to the provider seems crazy. It also doesn’t make us privvy to payment plans – i.e if the employer agrees to 100% upfront payment.

     
    in reply to: Non-Levy Reserved funding DAS accounts #422004

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Thanks Richard,

    The TPN2 is a real bug of mine. Why they can’t just make it payable directly to the EPAO’s if realistically it is an agreement between the Employer and EPAO. And why there is a TPN1 and TPN2 for ILR reporting but not on the DAS is long winded. Especially when the agreement might not have been negotiated at the start of training, but added later.

    And reading that tweet, it does seem there is a lot to look at between the EPA/Employer administration management and how the provider works in this brokerage.

     
    in reply to: Non-Levy Reserved funding DAS accounts #421968

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Does anyone know of exemptions for commonwealth countries – i can’t see any.

     
    in reply to: Apprenticeship funding for Learners on Visa's #416471

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Thanks Martin as i thought,
    Just wanted to prepare myself invoice breakdowns.

     
    in reply to: PMR 1&2 #412012

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Still needing co-funding reports for non-levy? – Also some Levy companies missing from the Payment report, as well as the App indicative reports not even covering R01 and R02 – am i missing something here?

     
    in reply to: R02 Apprenticeships payments update #408576

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Thanks Martin,

    I have contacted the ESFA as the EPAO has an ‘in principal’ approval and is on the register.

    When I’ve spoken to the ESFA they are giving me the trailblazer component AIM codes.
    Are Trailblazers and regular Standards the same because i thought that they had slightly different ILR specifications and Funding rules.

    I didn’t feel confident that they knew anything about the funding rules or the LARS or ILR returns.

     
    in reply to: Reporting Standards on ILR #408223

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    When will we get co-funding reports? You said that they are not being generated – i was under the impression from the helpdesk that a consolidated co-funding report would be generated for R01 and R02 – we have not invoiced our Levy exhausted companies on the basis that we match the co-funding report – please explain what i’m missing here?

     
    in reply to: R02 Apprenticeships payments update #407357

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Yes we’ve ran it through an XML checker, which confirmed the file is fine. What exactly does ‘XML is not well formed’ mean when it is a perfectly legitimate XML? -ESFA must know what error generates that message.

    I’ve tried to generate new files and submit them but its the same issue, so now were are as you’ve said Andrew checking the data for ‘weird characters’.

    We have an independent self created MI system, so it is well possible that some ‘weird characters’ have found their way in there. But we’re running data comparisons and the files look complete, clean data and matching previous submissions.

    I’ve reported to the ESFA but they have me on a wait – like you say if it’s data then maybe they can’t help, but the fact it wont run through the FIS to say what the data issues are that aren’t being recognised, is a real headache, as well as them not indicating what will be the reason for the file being rejected.

    Thanks for you feedback.

     
    in reply to: xml is not well formed #406369

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Yes, sorry i did mean my R13 and I’ve checked it against the R12, and as you said apart from information on completions/achievements all the data is formatted the same, full learner data is being submitted.

    So i don’t think the MI has a glitch that i can see that means its missing out info or creating an invalid format of the file.

    It is a 18/19 report and not a 19/20, I’ve mad sure the data collection year is correct and the file name is fine.

    I really can’t see what else it could be. – As the ESFA haven’t got back to me since last week i really am just hoping someone can give us info on what else we need to check as at the minute its very much needle in a haystack as to why i would get this error. I’m practically submitting the R13 report again. But there are some changes to learners that need to be reported on.

     
    in reply to: xml is not well formed #406341

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Hi Lisa,
    I spoke to the ESFA this morning after reading their post (apprenticeship support team on 08000 150600) and have been told that they still haven’t be able to generate the R01 and R02 co-funding reports and they hope it will be resolved in R03

    See post: http://feconnect.education.gov.uk/forums/topic/october-apprenticeship-payments-update/

    I explained that the employers are disgruntled that they are not receiving their invoicing timely and that they don’t wish to receive a large bill, also it is stopping us from imputing the training payments for the ILR return.

    There is another thread about training payments here: http://feconnect.education.gov.uk/forums/topic/recording-co-investment-before-r14/

    And they advised we pin point employers and keep updated using the ESFA blog pages.

    I don’t know why they can’t run it through the old system?

     
    in reply to: R01 19/20 – Co-Funding reports #406239

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    There is a new FIS out and it’s a whole new tool.
    I don’t think it is as good as the previous.
    But Yes you can upload straight to the hub now and it will provide you with an error report like the FIS would/if errors are present. Then prompt you to continue with the upload or view report and upload a new return.

    Or if you upload with no errors it will provide your reports there.

     
    in reply to: FIS FOR 19/20 #395384

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Thanks for the advice. If I just stop reporting them, the ILR will just treat is as a withdrawal in the sense that the funding will be clawed back correct?

    I just want to ensure that the funding is returned, i don’t want it to just stop from now.

    As mark said we have delivered learning so i would rather just ‘get rid’ rather than report a withdrawal

     
    in reply to: withdrawals – incorrect enrolment #394110

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    I am being really stupid because i am not an IT person – but how to i sync the new download to the software? I have no idea, i assumed there would be a ‘run’ facility to update the current software?

     
    in reply to: Q&A on Submit Learner Data and FIS #392300

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Where can i download the updated FIS out today? auto updates are not available on nothing on the FIS section in the HUB

     
    in reply to: 1920 FIS Update #391075

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Great Thanks!

     
    in reply to: FIS FOR 19/20 #389563

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    On neither my ‘old’ nor ‘new’ hub ‘submit learner pages’ is there a Tools and Services Menu

    Do we know when R01 will be open for reporting?

     
    in reply to: FIS FOR 19/20 #389557

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Thanks to all for replying

     
    in reply to: MI REPORTING SYSTEM #389545

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Thanks Martin, but this is another issue i’m having.

    On LARS the trailblazer Standard i want is code ST0192 according to Apprenticeship institute. But this is not on the LARS Learning Aims portal on the HUB – despite it being available since 2017.

    When you look up the learning AIM name ‘improvement technician’ on the Learning Aims portal it says it is Standard Code 238.

    The when I look it up on the ‘Appreticeship Standards Funding Bands it tells me the reference is ST0192, but the LARS References for providers only is 238.

    So i really don’t know how i’m supposed to test or report a standard. Even if i put in ST0193 this is not recognised in the learning aim portal, so i assumed it was the new code for this year and not the old one.

    I have also read the Learning AIM Class codes guidance and that states that the Z0001890 is for learning without certification, so that is why i’m wondering if it’s for recording vocational elements? Does that AIM draw funding? I assumed not!?

    Please can you advise how i clarify what AIM code to use? or if i need to pass my query elsewhere?

     
    in reply to: AIMS for STANDARDS – understanding LARS #389314

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Thank You,

    So the ZPROG AIM can be set to 2, 8?

     
    in reply to: Achievement Dates and ACTUAL end dates #389212

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Hi Jade,

    Did you get a conclusion for this query? Is it the final exam/discussion date?

    Thanks

     
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  NinaManEx.
    in reply to: 19/20 Achievement date ('AchDate') #389069

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Yes, I understand that now, but another rabbit hole of confusion.

    1) Am I correct in saying that the EPA cost must ALWAYS be recorded separate to the overall training cost and cannot be part of the TNP1 costs?
    – because the AFT guide states that the 20% completion/EPA payments are calculated as part of the Overall cost. But the cost of the EPA must not be the same as the 20% completion payment.

    2) EPA costs are part of the funding band maximum costs? Correct?

    The Technical funding guide doesn’t make payments of the PMR for the non-levy/co-funding of EPA costs clear.
    – I assume they will appear on the monthly funding reports as 1 singular cost in the column ‘amount due from employer’ or do they appear as 2 separate fees (i.e one contribution due for TNP1 and another for TNP2)

    – in the monthly instalments on the funding reports, to the payments differentiate between TNP1&2 payments or will it appear amalgamated as 1 payment in the ‘levy payment/co-funding payments’ column(s) [respectively], as they are not ‘additional payments’

    Sorry if i’m being a bit dumb here.

    All help is much appreciated thank you!

     
    in reply to: Standards and EndPoint Assessment Orgs #387744

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Right that’s good to know. I assume this will be part of the programme package laid out at the start of the programme. e.g. we would outline which EPAO we are going to use and have this in place before offering the standard. We would agree this with the employer before commencing training. (it would have to be considered in the negotiated pricing surely?)

     
    in reply to: Standards and EndPoint Assessment Orgs #387552

    NinaManEx
    Participant

    Thanks for the reply steveh. I understand what your saying – that the start date of the learner needs to match/or be after the EPAO’s approval date.

    I feel like I’ve entered into a rabbit hole though. As we are not yet delivering standards and have a bespoke MI reporting system i’m confused about what type of AIM’s I need to report. At the minute we report a ZROG001 (generic framework Programme AIM) and then NVQ VRQ (Component AIMS) and finally F.Skills AIMS. The NVQ VRQ reference codes identify the Assessment Organisation, so I assume this is how the standards will work too – Correct?

    But I didn’t realised that ZPROG’s were part of the Standard Programme AIM’s reporting I thought they were just Framework codes.
    Do you know if I will still be able to/need to use the generic code followed by the Standard code (e.g. ST0123) AIM or is it just the Standard Aim code i will need to report? I’ve yet to see if there are component AIMs as the Standard is still in development.

    I also saw another post about reporting the end point assessor separately once they had been decided. So I assume then that I use the ST123 AIM and I report also the EPAO as an AIM (will this be the component AIM?)

    Or can you point me to where i can find this Data, its not clear in the ILR specification. And i’m not sure of the 100 other ESFA ILR Data docs to start with.

     
    in reply to: Standards and EndPoint Assessment Orgs #387435
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 42 total)