This scenario is very similar to a post by Jo a couple of days ago where the answer from the ESFA was to terminate and restart the learner affecting success rates!
My learner left her employer (2 weeks before the incentive payment was due to kick in) and immediately started with another employer (over the Christmas period). By the time we returned after the Christmas break and found out about the situation she had started with a 3rd employer and is still there.
We did not complete any documentation for the 2nd Employer (H&S, Commitment Statement etc as she had left before we knew she had even started) so I do not want to enter their details onto the ILR but if we don’t add these details the first employer will trigger the incentive payment as the 3rd employer start date will extend the 1st employers activity by 3 weeks!!!!
The Learner did not actually have a break in employment so we are not considering termination and restart:
1. Do we go with a 2 Employer scenario (1st and 3rd) where Employer 1 will get the incentive payment?
2. Can we add the 2nd Employer onto the ILR to correct the situation with the incentive payment and fill the gap which could (according to the ESFA prompt a termination and restart) even though we have no documentation to prove she was even at a 2nd Employer.
3. Can we do a BIL (less than 20 working days) to cover the period where she was at the 2nd Employer and bring her back when she started with 3rd Employer?
Please Help February 8, 2018 at 3:49 pm #234739
You cannot use a BIL, all you can do is withdraw and restart with the 3rd Employer.February 8, 2018 at 4:05 pm #234748
I agree it’s not a BIL, however I’m not convinced it has to be a withdrawal and new start. I’d ask the service desk to be sure.
I have had success lately when giving the service desk a list of possible options like the ones you’ve listed, and getting them to pick one (plus I add “Or a different option you suggest”). If I ask open questions, I tend to get vague and incomplete answers.February 8, 2018 at 4:47 pm #234759
IMHO it is ludicrous to penalise Providers if a Learner moves employers as you suggest and has no actual break in employment (counting the weekend is just silly) by forcing that to be a QAR penalty – that’s rules gone bonkers!February 8, 2018 at 11:47 pm #234807
Thank You everyone,
I have e mailed the helpdesk to get a direct response from the ESFA as I totally disagree that our Success rates should suffer just because a learner decides to change employer whilst continuing on the same programme of learning with the same provider.
I understand it has implications for the payments from Employers, their contracts etc but there should be some way for ITProviders’s to code this scenario which reflects the ACTUAL / TRUE situation and does not affect their statistics in a negative way.
SueFebruary 9, 2018 at 9:25 am #234876
I dont think that ESFA has any idea as to how transient some industries are in terms of employee movement. As Sue indicates, we have in the past had learners moving to two or more employees within the life of the apprenticeship without any break in employment or learning.
Am going to watch this with interest as I know our SMT will not be happy their achievement rates may be affected by a learner simply changing employers.
Are we now meant to say to our potential learners that they cannot move employers until their apprenticeship is finished? I know it is easier if they stay put but realistically this situation will occur…
Please post the help desk response SueFebruary 9, 2018 at 11:13 am #234896
I’ve emailed our Provider Account Manager asking for clarification on whether it is actually the expectation of the ESFA to ruin QSR data with such utter madness. Whether I will have a response is yet to be known.
TraceyFebruary 9, 2018 at 12:51 pm #234922
lharkins – I don’t think that’s what Martin is suggesting. The Provider Support Manual is very clear that a simple change of employer doesn’t require a withdrawal. This situation is different because there’s an employer in the middle that never signed all the relevant paperwork, and therefore there’s a gap between the end date with employer 1, and start date with employer 3.
Were it not for the incentive situation, I wouldn’t even worry about the gap (unless it was more than a few weeks), and would just record the true new employer start date. In this situation, however, that would mean employer 1 gets the incentive they didn’t actually earn. I think that’s the crux of this issue.February 12, 2018 at 9:49 am #235518
I have asked the service desk a question about the time between employer transfers.
As stated in the funding rules a break in learning cannot be entered into the ILR for this occurrence, the original employer would have stopped the Apprentice on the DAS system creating a data lock so the learner cannot be funded. The learner can remain on the ILR if they are in the process of starting with a new employer if the paperwork has not been completed in between ILR returns. This would them be reflected in the ILR as a transfer to a new employer continuing the same learning aims as shown in the provider support manual.
If there is going to be a large gap spanning multiple ILR returns the learner should be withdrawn as the learner would show as an error on the ILR validation during the time of unemployment, this way flag up on audit reports as the leaner should have been withdrawn in accordance to the rule sent in my prior email.
The problem is we have to conduct an H&S check, negotiate with the employer and in some cases try and get the employer to register onto the DAS portal. All of which does not happen over night, so there will be data locks. Temporarily removing the learner should stop this, but it seems it’s not allowed.
TraceyFebruary 12, 2018 at 4:03 pm #235571
I am glad someone has had a response as I have nothing back yet from the ESFA!
The employers in question are Small, Non-Levy so it is our ILR entries that dictate the funding!February 13, 2018 at 10:00 am #235698
Please see the response below from the ESFA – Hot off the press!
Thank you for contacting the Service Desk
I have looked into your query regarding the employer query, if you do not have the documentation you would not be able to record the learner with employer “2”. This would not be applicable as the learner would not have an audit record to back up the ILR entry.
The learner would not be able to be placed on a break in learning as a break in learning must be able to be approved by the employer. The only option in this situation is for the learner to be changed to employer 3 if the supporting documentation is completed.
The main issue you will face is with the Employer incentive, if this triggers for employer 1 then for audit purposes and the unique situation of the learners journey then you will need to pay this to employer 1.
Service DeskFebruary 14, 2018 at 1:45 pm #235960
Thanks Sue, good to know 🙂 So Employer 1 just gets the first incentive, even though they don’t strictly deserve it. They’ll be pleased!February 14, 2018 at 1:47 pm #235962
I’m a bit Victor Meldrew about this as I just don’t believe it, but now you have it in writing from the helpdesk you can give that to any Auditor as you are only doing what you were told!February 14, 2018 at 6:48 pm #236037
I have a situation where the employer has received the incentive at 90 days, then between the 90 day period and the 365 day period the learner has gone to a new employer.
However the PFR still shows the ERN number for the first employer she was on programme with? Do I still give the 365 days incentive payment to the new employer, even though it is not showing them on the PFR?
ThanksSeptember 12, 2018 at 2:27 pm #286517
I believe the report only shows the Employer at the start of learning, I assume you have undated the Employment status to reflect the new employer.
You should make the payment to the Employer with who the Apprenticeship was with at the point the payment was due.
HTHSeptember 12, 2018 at 4:06 pm #286536
Yes I have updated the Employment Status, that’s great, that’s what I thought, but thought I would just check with others.
ThanksSeptember 13, 2018 at 4:15 pm #286826
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.