My head it spinning with the 10% requirement. Can anyone clarify for me:
If the maximum funding band is say £3000 and we confirm this would be the Total negotiated Cost for Training….
Is the Assessment Cost on top of this and reported individually or should the TNP be reduced so that the total of Assessment and Training Cost become the overall financial value?
Should it be:
Total Training Cost £3000 Assessment Cost £500 Total Financial Cost £3500
Total Training Cost £2500 Assessment Cost £500 Total Financial Cost £3000
And is the 10% rule in relation to the training cost, the assessment cost or the total financial cost?
I have tried to look at the guidance, but this is one basis explanation that I am just not getting.
Any help appreciated.
Paul.May 19, 2017 at 10:37 am #160923
Hope you are ok.
Firstly lets assume that are negotiating entirely within funding bands.
The maximum funding band is for all costs so total cost for training and total cost for assessment. These are captured as two separate elements on the ILR (TNP1 and TNP2).
For co-investing employers you have the charge them the 10% for both training and assessment and record that this has been paid independently on the ILR although of course you may only invoice the employer once for the whole lot (PMR1, PMR2).
As an example you negotiate a total price for training of £3000 which includes £500 for end point assessment. The employer would pay 10% so £300 in total.
TNP1 = £2500
TNP2 = £500
PMR1 = £250 (You would add this to the ILR when the employer pays it)
PMR2 = £50
May 19, 2017 at 10:54 am #160930
- This reply was modified 9 months ago by paultaylor.
Paul you never disappoint to amaze me and clear the mist!
It was more of a sense check in this madness, so it is 10% of total cost which would include training and assessment!
Paul.May 19, 2017 at 10:57 am #160933
further to this you will need a payment plan. Does this not need to follow the ESFA payments method of 80% OPPs and 20% completion?
For example if the duration is 12 months the employer would be paying 10% of 80% of the £3,000 monthly i.e. £20/month and then the final payment on completion would be 10% of the remaining 20% which is £60 giving the £300 in total.
The example of using the actual EPA cost did work for the trailblazers so far but not now?
ChrisMay 19, 2017 at 11:05 am #160941
As I understand it, as long as the payments are equal to or above the expected in a given quarter then it’s fine. So, in the above example, if an employer wanted to give you £300 at the start, everything would be fine and you’d get the 12 monthly payments towards the 80%. What they can’t do is give you the £300 at the end. Basically ESFA would want to see £63 a quarter in the ILR against PMR1, it doesn’t have to be £21 a month. Unlike the trailblazers, draw down isn’t directly linked to the payment received.May 19, 2017 at 12:35 pm #160971
yes I agree with what you say, thank you. I was just trying to keep it simple in my mind to maintain a sense of logic for tracking all of this through.
ChrisMay 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm #160999
Using logic is an ambitious approach Chris!
The more payments you collect of course, the more times you will have to update the ILR with payment received information. I suspect most providers will try to capture all or most of the co-investment at start.May 19, 2017 at 3:01 pm #161005
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.