I am extremely concerned that yet another 24 hours has expired with no evidence of any recognition from the Authorities that anything is amiss.
Whenever anyone posts on this thread I get an email which allows me to follow the debate – is this not so for Catherine or Martin from the ESFA?
We are all left feeling that nobody cares…April 23, 2018 at 7:23 pm #251819SFA STAFF
We resolved the issues with reporting on Friday 20 April and released reports with a statement on the Hub and FE Connect (see earlier in this thread).
Some providers have raised queries and we are following these up with individuals where necessary and we will use this feedback to improve future reporting.
Individual providers that want to speak to us should phone or email the service help desk on 0370 267 0001 and SDE.firstname.lastname@example.org.
At R09 (the next reporting period) we will provide the Apps Monthly Payment Report in the same format as at R08.
Based on user needs we will also provide 2 new reports:
• Additional payments (incentives) report. This shows what providers need to pay to employers and will help with remittance read across.
• Summary report. This shows year to date totals based on actual payments produced at period end. This is similar to the reports providers receive after each ILR submission but includes accurate payment details.
For R10, we aim to review the Apps Monthly Payment Report based on user feedback.
We welcome user feedback and will continue to work with providers on our reporting.April 24, 2018 at 1:02 pm #251973
Thank you for your post, however you have provided no feedback on my post of 20th April just after your last one in which I asked some very specific questions (summarised below, but please see my original post for full details):
1/ Is it the “FIS and data returns 2017 to 2018 known issues” that we all need to look at and is it the tab called “DC_KnownIssues” tab therein?
2/ Is it possible to have dates against the issues, please?
3/ What about the Known Issue raised at http://feconnect.sfa.bis.gov.uk/forums/topic/remittance-advice-ledger-description-and-contract-no/ that is missing from the Known Issues document above?
4/ How can users ensure that what the Agency is prioritising to fix is what is really needed?
5/ In addition, what can be done about the issue raised at http://feconnect.sfa.bis.gov.uk/forums/topic/bi-reports-5/ – this also needs to be within the Known Issues, please
CasparApril 24, 2018 at 3:59 pm #252001
Can you advise if you are still having issues reconciling the reports to the remittance advice?
I am trying to complete this and am really struggling to get the finances reconciled, they are way out and I have also noticed issues with the data match report
If you can advise if you are all ok as I can then escalate to the service desk.
ThanksApril 25, 2018 at 1:38 pm #252169
Our reports are still incorrect and we are not on the list of providers who are still being worked on….April 25, 2018 at 3:31 pm #252199
Is anyone having issues with Completion status on the new reports – I have a lot of learners who have no completion status compared to version 1 of the report.
I ve still got learners with duplicate rows with different start dates.Any ideas?April 26, 2018 at 12:17 pm #252450
I have checked the re issued RO8 and there are 6 learners that have a random functional skill against them which isn’t even in the ILR so unsure how it can end up in a report. It has drawn down an OPP in February but reconciled it in March, has anyone else had any other anomalies with the ‘New’ RO8 monthly apps report ?
AnneApril 27, 2018 at 9:20 am #252657
This would reflect FS included in previous returns and have been deleted from or amended in the current return, the report will indicate for these when the original payment was made and when the payment was taken back.
This is what this report was intended to do as it should enable you to reconcile the payments received.
HTHApril 27, 2018 at 10:58 am #252686
Thanks Martin I kind of get that but whats strange is that these have never been entered previously in the ILR and we don’t delete aims we just non start the aim.
Also is this is new feature of the report then as I haven’t noticed it do this previous.
AnneApril 27, 2018 at 11:36 am #252705
Yes this is a new revision to the report this period and it would include any aim previously returned even if you ‘non start the aim’ but I am not sure I understand this phrase.
HTHApril 27, 2018 at 11:59 am #252713
Thanks again Martin non start just means if we have put a functional skill on and the learner subsequently brings an exemption in rather than delete it out of the ILR I just make the end date the same as the start date so as it would pay back any funding we may have had and also for audit purposes to keep it transparent (don’t really like deleting any data) !April 27, 2018 at 12:12 pm #252720
The report is keeping a history of everything that has been sent so that you can reconcile all of your remittance advice data using this one document.
I think that this is part of the problem with the current report format and this could be simplified. We could have one report that shows payments, and another that shows earnings.
All our other funding reports show YTD earnings for the latest submission only and remove learners that were previously reported as funded but subsequently are being reported as non-starts. On this basis – and that this has been the system for as long as I can remember – I think there should be a new apps report that does the same. It may be useful to have a payments report also but the two together is overly complicated.April 27, 2018 at 12:26 pm #252724
The only circumstances where this practice would be acceptable is where this applied to a start in a previous ILR year.
Where this applies to starts during the current ILR year as per the following from the funding rules the record should not be included in the ILR and the normal practice to retain an audit trail is to flag the record as not to be included in the ILR.
457. If a learner withdraws without completing one episode of learning, for example without attending the first class, then they must not be included in the ILR.
HTHApril 27, 2018 at 12:34 pm #252726
I like this new report as I can understand ‘when’ and ‘what’ has been changed, as for the ‘why’ well that’s another question.
Let’s give the report creator credit for this.April 27, 2018 at 2:27 pm #252760
There is nothing wrong with the intention to put the ‘what’ and ‘when’ in one report. It is the execution which is the issue. I would argue that a report containing 300+ columns is too big, especially when you start adding a couple of thousand rows of learner data to it.
The report is designed to give MIS staff an output that enables them to check and understand their funding. It’s clear that many people have struggled with this and I believe the output format is partly to blame (although the errors in the last few months have not helped!).
There are other issues; the funding methodology could probably have been simplified and the requirement to split out the differently contracted part of the funding (framework uplift, disadvantaged) adds complexity. And as you have mentioned before, a few simple tweaks would allow MIS staff to reconcile these reports and remittance info more easily.
My wider point in all of this is that I don’t think enough consultation has been done on these reports and I fear that whatever we end up with in May will not have gone through much of a process either. It feels like those report writers are ploughing a lone furrow and we are waiting to see what comes out of the other end.April 27, 2018 at 3:01 pm #252777
I agree with Paul, above, as it echoes one of the points I made earlier:
4/ How can users ensure that what the Agency is prioritising to fix is what is really needed?
I note that another week has ended and the ESFA are studiously ignoring questions posed to them – not exactly confidence-making…April 27, 2018 at 9:32 pm #252887
You can disregard the complexity of the spreadsheet if you use pivot tables to extract the data you require. This could be improved even further if they would populate all the fields and this would then allow reconciliation for all data items.
They are nearly there with this report but it still needs to be developed further to allow it to be a useful reconciliation tool for Providers.April 28, 2018 at 2:05 pm #253004
I have spent considerable time proving that the new period end report matches exactly all payments made YTD as shown in all remittance documents however I am sure there are still a few over-payments that have been made for some functional skills. I am waiting for an answer to this from the ESFA to tell me if I am right or wrong since I reported this on 21st April !! I have even given the detail needed at individual record level so the ESFA is not starting from scratch so not difficult for them to check. Nothing!!
ChrisApril 30, 2018 at 3:07 am #253344
We are at R09 and I am still struggling with this. I now have a difference between amounts actually received through the bank account and amounts paid according to the ESFA, but it’s a small difference. I have however unpaid amounts left (difference between income due and payments made – both coming from the ESFA’s own schedules) and no idea why we are being underpaid ! Will we ever get to the bottom of this !?May 14, 2018 at 2:38 pm #256838
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.