10% from employers rule

Home Forums Data issues 10% from employers rule

This topic contains 6 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  paultaylor 3 months ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Paul Rogers
    Participant

    Hello all,

    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

    or

    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.

     
    #160923

    paultaylor
    Participant

    Hi Paul

    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

    Simple!

     
    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by  paultaylor.
    #160930

    Paul Rogers
    Participant

    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!

    Thanks!

    Paul.

     
    #160933

    chrisbradley
    Participant

    Hello,

    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?

    Chris

     
    #160941

    steveh
    Participant

    Hi Chris

    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.

     
    #160971

    chrisbradley
    Participant

    Hi Steve,

    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.
    Chris

     
    #160999

    paultaylor
    Participant

    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.

     
    #161005
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.