simonl

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 58 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • simonl
    Participant

    They have a youtube channel and they all get uploaded there, not sure if it has gone on just yet.

     
    in reply to: New rule BIL and end dates #426500

    simonl
    Participant

    Thank you Josh I really appreciate the feedback. I have heard a lot of good things about BUD so far and am looking forward to them coming in for a demo.

     
    in reply to: Feedback on systems please #426373

    simonl
    Participant

    Thanks Ruth

     
    in reply to: Gap in change of employer #425760

    simonl
    Participant

    Thanks Ruth

    I will double check but I am sure it comes up as an error if they are not on the minimum OTJ hours, this might just be our system though.

     
    in reply to: Gap in change of employer #425756

    simonl
    Participant

    Hi Matt

    Yes that is my understanding. The OTJ will be the same unless when you bring them back on you have increased the LOS for whatever reason.

     
    in reply to: Gap in change of employer #425752

    simonl
    Participant

    Thanks Ruth, I think allowing a few days and updating the ACT as the day before is probably more practical for us as we have nearly 10k learners so the work involved in putting in breaks and restarts would be huge so a more common sense approach is probably best used.

     
    in reply to: Gap in change of employer #422186

    simonl
    Participant

    I read that you only use a break if it will affect funding which if they move in the same month it does not.
    So basically we use a break for everyone who changes employer and does not start the new employer the following day?

     
    in reply to: Gap in change of employer #422169

    simonl
    Participant

    Thanks Martin I thought that was the case.

     
    in reply to: Employer change from non levy to levy #421220

    simonl
    Participant

    Thanks guys

     
    in reply to: No assessment cost – now have one #415711

    simonl
    Participant

    Hi can I just ask on this thread how do we report on the ILR it is a levy transfer? I could not find any guidance anywhere about it.

    TIA

     
    in reply to: Levy Transfers & Data Match #410617

    simonl
    Participant

    We are fine with this Martin and have been audited many times without it being an issue, we could sign this 5 minutes before as it does not specify the timescale on how long before the app starts.

     
    in reply to: RPL Best practice #409118

    simonl
    Participant

    We do deliver learning on the first visit so this is not an issue and have always signed commitment statements on the induction visit which has never been a problem for us.

    What might be normal for one provider may not work for another so I am hoping to speak to other similar organisations to get an idea of how they do it.

     
    in reply to: RPL Best practice #409112

    simonl
    Participant

    Hi Martin

    We are doing this on a sign up visit and if we do not do this then we are unable to identify RPL. We need to identify this in order to agree LOS and price which all need doing at sign up and agreeing with the employer for them to sign and confirm it all.
    We start learning on the first visit too so the sign up visit is the first visit.

     
    in reply to: RPL Best practice #409060

    simonl
    Participant

    Thanks Martin

     
    in reply to: Commercial apprenticeships #408501

    simonl
    Participant

    Thanks all, hopefully just an error on their side but have raised it anyway.

     
    in reply to: Dlock_11 Not Levy Paying employer #406443

    simonl
    Participant

    Yes it is the Ach date field that draws the payments now that and having all the employer contributions recorded.

     
    in reply to: Missing completion payments R01 #401427

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: Missing completion payments R01 #400600

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: Missing completion payments R01 #400596

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: Missing completion payments R01 #400588

    simonl
    Participant

    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?

     
    in reply to: Funding line type = none #399774

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: ILR proposed changes #396958

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: ILR proposed changes #396907

    simonl
    Participant

    Good spot, they gave a deadline to comment so I thought it might be up.
    Thanks Martin

     
    in reply to: ILR proposed changes #396000

    simonl
    Participant

    Thanks Jack I have a calculator for all that, just need to update it for anything less than 16 hours now 🙂

     
    in reply to: Minimum hours worked Apprentices #392314
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 58 total)