simonl

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 43 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • 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

    simonl
    Participant

    Thanks Steve

    I think it must be something that just passed us by and we always assumed it was still the case.

     
    in reply to: Minimum hours worked Apprentices #392223

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: Restarts and QAR #382378

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: Restarts and QAR #382370

    simonl
    Participant

    They don’t make it easy do they!

     
    in reply to: Restarts and QAR #381163

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: Restarts and QAR #381141

    simonl
    Participant

    Excellent thank you Martin

     
    in reply to: Completion or Achievement #380299

    simonl
    Participant

    That’s what I was hoping to hear Martin, thank you.

    Do you know if this is mentioned in any of the guidance?

     
    in reply to: Completion or Achievement #380291

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: change of employer #378289

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: Aptem or OneFile #377011

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: Aptem or OneFile #376983

    simonl
    Participant

    Did anyone get any further with this? We had Aptem in yesterday so looking for any recommendations if people are using it.

     
    in reply to: Aptem or OneFile #376925

    simonl
    Participant

    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.

     
    in reply to: Completion Payments #376365

    simonl
    Participant

    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)

     
    in reply to: Completion Payments #376344

    simonl
    Participant

    Hi Martin

    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?

     
    in reply to: Completion Payments #376338

    simonl
    Participant

    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?

     
    in reply to: Completion Payments #376326
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 43 total)