Forum Replies Created
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.
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?
Thanks Martin I thought that was the case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks all, hopefully just an error on their side but have raised it anyway.
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.