Tagged: LEVY APPRENTICESHIP CHANGE
If a learner wants to transfer their framework they’ve started in December due to change in job role, how do we record this in the ILR.
The employer is a non levy who has already paid their contributions but there is a difference from £2000 to £1500 in the funding band for the framework.
In the technical funding guidance this is classed as new start so would we close off the ILR and start a brand new one with new start and end dates? How would we evidence then the contribution for the 10%?
Many ThanksFebruary 9, 2018 at 11:22 am #234898
Hi, You would withdraw and open the new qualification so you would need to negotiate with the employer the cost of the new delivery and issue a new contract for the 10% contribution.
TraceyFebruary 9, 2018 at 11:29 am #234900
Do we have to fully close down the ILR in our MIS system and then open a new ILR, the original contribution which has been paid already is £50 over the funding band for the qualification the learner is transferring too, so would we not debit the £50 back to the employer.
I apologise as this is the first one in the new reforms i have had to do this for and am quite unsure, as if i opened a new qualification in the original ILR then would i not need to change the learners original expected end date?
Many ThanksFebruary 9, 2018 at 11:50 am #234907
Yes withdraw and use code 40 for the withdrawal reason, then set up a new episode of learning.
If the employer has paid over the original cap, then you must pay this back to the employer if you have not previously agreed additional charges
I think everyone is a little unsure and it’s new with nothing historical to help guide you.
TraceyFebruary 9, 2018 at 12:29 pm #234915
Yes, you’re right about closing the original programme aim and opening a new one. Remember that any continuing quals (perhaps English/maths) stay open.
I asked the ESFA about PMR on a Pathway change;
I am asking what to do where the full 10% contribution was paid up front, and recorded as a PMR on the original programme aim. We won’t be asking the employer for any payments after the pathway change, because they already made all their contributions. The choices are;
• Adjust and reduce the PMR value on the original programme aim, and create a new PMR on the new programme aim, but with the same date. The two records would total what was originally paid
• Give the employer a partial refund, record that refund on the original programme aim, ask for a new payment for the exact same amount, and record that as a PMR on the new programme aim with a new date
• Something else that you advise
To accurately record the PMR you will need to follow your second point to accurately record the programme and to keep an accurate audit record.
“· Give the employer a partial refund, record that refund on the original programme aim, ask for a new payment for the exact same amount, and record that as a PMR on the new programme aim with a new date”
If you have to refund and re-invoice for a pathway change, then that’s definitely what you’d need to do for a whole framework change. In my case, the prices were the same, but the principal is the same. You’ll need to work out how much of the original framework you think they completed to accurately refund them based on that. You then need to decide if you’re charging your usual price for the new framework. You might reduce the price if there’s some crossover.
If you’re not reducing your price (£1,500) for the new framework, and you’re not refunding the full amount for the first framework (£2,000), the employer may end up paying overall an amount that’s neither £150 or £200, but somewhere in between.
If you fully refund the first framework, there will be no payment amount, which I think means you don’t get any funding from the ESFA in the end (please someone correct me if that’s wrong). If you’ve only delivered a little of the first one, and you’re charging full price for the new framework, that might be ok with you, but it will keep appearing in the reports that say you haven’t claimed enough co-investment, unless you re-code it to Funding 99.
February 12, 2018 at 12:25 pm #235545
- This reply was modified 9 months ago by Ruth CJ.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.