information about how you use ‘Get help with ESFA services’. We use this information to make the
website work as well as possible and improve government services.
You have accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any
This is a new service – your feedback will help us to improve it.
Created 21 July 2021 15:33
I wondered if anyone has any thoughts on this.
An apprentice has got to gateway three months early. They were due to complete in June, but finished delivery in March (still met the minimum duration). They completed, so we deserve the full 80% on programme funding. We marked them as 1 and 8 with an Actual End Date in March, and waited for them to complete the EPA.
The apprentice has now decided doesn't want to do the whole EPA (he's done part of it), and has quit. That's not a fail, as to be Completion Status 2, he would have to have sat the full EPA. ILR Spec says;
For apprenticeship standards, the learning activities for the programme aim include both the training and end point assessment. Code 2 must only be used for the apprenticeship standard programme aim where both the training and end point assessment activities have been completed.
So that leaves a Withdrawal, but if I code him as a withdrawal with an end date of March, we get the balancing payment for Apr/May/Jun we got for early completion, clawed back. That not fair, as we finished delivery and earned that funding.
Before I raise it with the service desk, have I missed something? Is there anything we can do? It's not even as if we can use the EAS to get the missing funding, as it should be coming from the employer's levy account.
No one has replied to this post.
It may not appear fair but that is the funding methodology.
21 July 2021 16:34
Martin West I don't accept that though. It's an oversight because they just didn't consider this scenario. It's absurd that we should be penalised for a student finishing early, because the methodology can't handle this. We can't be the first provider this has happened to, it's not that bizarre. How many of these unintended funding losses should we accept simply because the methodology doesn't account for some totally legitimate scenarios?
21 July 2021 16:55
21 July 2021 17:46
The PSM guidance is as follows:
In order to be recorded as ‘Completed’ (Completion status code 2), both the training and end point assessment activities for the programme must be completed. An end point assessment that has resulted in a failed outcome can be classed as complete as long as the learner reaches the end of the end point assessment period, rather than withdrawing. If either of these have not been completed, then the programme aim cannot be recorded with Completion status code 2.
22 July 2021 07:47
Yeah, it's an outlier, and not fair, but I don't think there's anyway round it.
The other thing to check is did you actually get the balancing payment? Certainly in 19/20, it was releasing the balancing payment as part of the completion payment and not before (despite what the technical guidance said). Me and Mel had months of back and forth with the Service Desk to get them to confirm it...
22 July 2021 08:23
Steveh still never got to the bottom of that from the service desk either, I don't think!
22 July 2021 08:28
Oh, I'd have to dig through my emails, but I thought we got them to admit that the balancing payments Just Don't Come until completion? It's entirely feasible I may just not have forwarded this on!!!
22 July 2021 08:32
To be fair, Steve, you're probably right that we did get them to admit that - I'm lost in an email maze these days!
22 July 2021 08:54
From the Technical guidance
22 July 2021 09:02
Martin West That's talking about the completion element. We're talking about the balancing payment for the on programme element.
Plot twist, this was actually March/June 2020 (thought the principal remains the same). The EPAO has finally said the apprentice is too late. We've been waiting for a over a year for the apprentice to get the last part done, trying to persuade them to do it. We did get the balancing payment in 19/20. So, we have actually had the money, but I think they're now going to show up in FRM27 suggesting we owe the money back. I guess we'll have this conversation with ESFA when they address the money they want back based on FRM27. We have a couple on there where we fully accept that we need to give the money back, but I'd like to argue for keeping the funding for this one.
22 July 2021 09:53
Will a clawback as a result of FRM27 always be discussed with the Provider or will it just appear as a clawback with no reference, where clawbacks are usually shown?
23 July 2021 10:54