Forum Replies Created
Yes it is the Ach date field that draws the payments now that and having all the employer contributions recorded.
Found it now thanks Martin, it was showing as an error in FIS but apparently this was not updated so it was not actually an error.
The guidance said that people who did not go into EPA from the 1st of Aug you used the ach date field. The ones already in EPA had an actual end date in Aug. Anyone pre Aug 01 the actual end date includes EPA so will be the same date as the EPA date is it not? We tried putting an ach date in with the same date and it gave us an error saying it had to be 7 days difference.
I thought the achievement date is a new field and only used for post Aug 1st? The achievement date will be the same as the learning actual end date in these cases which would result in an error.
Thank you both
I can see in their record we have included an ACT record, when you mean export the record is this that the ILR has not pulled them through when we submit the leaner data?
We record off the job hours through both our Eportfolio and learner reviews which get completed each month. However our eportfolio will not be able to automatically populate the ILR in the system we use for this.
This means our team will have to then all be given licences to the eportfolio, search learner records then manually input the hours. Increasing the admin time quite a lot.
Doing this monthly would be almost impossible and the cost to this task substantial. Yearly it could be done but again another process and expense incurred by ourselves.
If anyone wants to audit the hours they can come in and see our documents and how we store this information. Forcing it in the ILR shows a lack of trust and the bad providers will just enter incorrect information anyway.September 13, 2019 at 11:20 am in reply to: Consultation on possible 2020/21 ILR change – Off the job training actual hours #397610
It said open for comments meaning we could leave a comment about the changes and our responses will contribute to their decisions. However FE Week have been posting that it is all confirmed which contradicts their wording as it was a proposal last week.
I still can’t see where we can comment on the changes. As others have said I don’t have a problem logging the hours as we already do this but to then add it to the ILR would mean a lot more admin time.
Our data team do not have access to the eportfolio so it would mean training them up to get access then adding steps in to search and log the hours.
Good spot, they gave a deadline to comment so I thought it might be up.
Thanks Jack I have a calculator for all that, just need to update it for anything less than 16 hours now 🙂
I think it must be something that just passed us by and we always assumed it was still the case.
Crazy isn’t it!
I have another issue similar to this with a learner who has returned from a break in learning so we can re-start that one fine however their employer is now a levy payer. We tried to return them on the employers DAS and it will not allow it as the course has now discontinued for new starts as it is a framework. It is not a new start but a restart but DAS can’t cope with that. Their advice again was to put them on a new standard, so the learner would have to restart everything but if we apply RPL on a 12 month course it just won’t work.
I had the response saying we can re-start them and this is backed up in the support manual. However they did say it would then need to meet the minimum duration and we would have to use RPL which just doesnt work.
If you use the restart indicator though it should stop it coming up as an error on the minimum duration.
They don’t make it easy do they!
This is for learners that have withdrawn and then returned so not learners coming back from a break in learning.
For example left a job, two months later found a new job then came back on as a restart. I wasn’t sure if it would count the withdrawal as a leaver if the learner returned as a restart.
If it does count them as a leaver what happens if they then withdraw again, you would have 2 withdrawals for the same person on the same programme.
Excellent thank you Martin
That’s what I was hoping to hear Martin, thank you.
Do you know if this is mentioned in any of the guidance?
We have had this a few times and I looked into it a few weeks back. As soon as the learner leaves employment they no longer have a contract so they are not eligible to be an apprentice.
You withdraw them from the programme but if and when they start with a new employer you bring them back on using the restart indicator. You then reduce the LOS and costs to reflect the previous time on programme. From my understanding coding them as a re-start then does not include the withdrawn record in the QAR so it’s really just the same as a BIL.
It’s in the support manual under changes on an apprenticeship and withdrawing learners.
Thanks Matthew, we currently use Maytas, Etrack, Workbooks (CRM), Docusign (Electronic start docs) and our own bespoke E Learning platform so this looked ideal that we could have it all in once place but I think not having off line for trainers would be a bit issue as we work in Hospitality and Care so not possible to be sat at a laptop.
Ok thanks, let me know what you think.
Sounds great for us but no off line for TA’s which is probably a stopper for us. Plus they still cant bulk amend information in the ILR which we find very useful.
Did anyone get any further with this? We had Aptem in yesterday so looking for any recommendations if people are using it.
I was advised by someone else that they had to sit all elements but I wanted to double check this as you mention the funding rules don’t refer to all elements being sat.
Thanks Martin I will try the service desk see if anyone can confirm for me.
The funding rule guidance just says
“For standards, evidence of completion would include written confirmation from the EPAO to you about the outcome of the end-point assessment, evidence that the minimum duration requirement has been met, and, where applicable, evidence that the employer’s co-investment has been collected and recorded”.
I am trying to find out if they need to have sat all the elements to be classed as a completer (but not achieved)
I thought we could claim the completion even if they fail as long as they have sat all elements? So in our case this would be a fail as they have not sat all elements but if she had sat them all and failed we could claim completion?
Jumping on an old thread here but can anyone confirm, do they need to have sat all elements of EPA before we can claim completion?
For example a learner has passed a test, failed an observation twice so we did not carry out the discussion so would this mean we are not able to claim completion unless we carried out the PD?