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 17 May 2022 15:55
Does anyone know why the Rule Violation Summary Report might have a different 'Total Number of Valid Learners' compared to the breakdown in the ALLB Occupancy report?
This has been going on for a while now and the Service Desk have not been able to come up with a functional resolution. The data has been accurately returned and I have quadruple checked every single data to see why some learners are showing and others are not.
No one has replied to this post.
The reported ALL reported are different, the RVS report indicates the number of deliveries whereas the the ALLB access report only indicates the following:
ALLB Occupancy Report230. This is a detailed report that contains the funding for support payments and area costs for learners funded through an Advanced Learner Loan; recorded through Funding model 99 (Non-funded) with a Learning Delivery Funding and Monitoring Type 'ADL' ('Advanced Learner Loans indicator'). It does not include EAS data as the EAS data is at an aggregate level, not at a detailed level.231. This report contains the key information about the learning aim references, learners and the month your data generated any earnings.232. Funding model 99 aims are included in this report if one of the following conditions is met.• The ADL code and ALB code have been returned.• The ADL code has been returned and an area cost uplift has been earned.233. If there are no Funding model 99 aims in your ILR submission with the ADL and ALB code, or the ADL code and an area cost uplift, this report will be blank.234. This is a CSV file.
18 May 2022 06:05
Yeah, if some of your delivery generates Area Cost Uplift (ie is in London and the South East) and some doesn't (and check your delivery location postcodes aren't ZZ99 9ZZ!) that would explain the discrepancy.
18 May 2022 08:45 (Edited)
Thank you Martin and Steve.
The described content of the ALLB report above is exactly what we want given the data returned on our ILR tools. Funding model is 99, ADL is indicated and all postcodes have been correctly returned.
My only observation at this point is the postcode of the learners that are not showing in the ALLB report- Kidderminster, Halifax, Scunthorpe, Blackburn, Rotherham, Coventry, Essex, Mansfield and Bolton; these are all in England and I see no reason for this to pose a problem.
18 May 2022 11:05
Good afternoon again.
The delivery of the programme is predominantly 'Online' and in order to avoid claiming 'area uplifts' for delivery location, we have used their home postcode as 'delivery location postcode'. I just changed the postcodes to our centre's and all learners are now showing on the FIS report.
What's your take on this?
18 May 2022 11:30
Yes, they would, because Area Cost uplift is defined by delivery postcode, not learner home postcode.
Somewhat of a vexed question as to whether you're entitled to Area Cost uplift for ALL delivery if you're delivering online...
18 May 2022 11:50
The report will only show those learners who you have either claimed Advanced Learner Loans Bursary funding or where area cost uplift is applicable.
For the delivery location postcode see the following:
Where provision is delivered away from a learning centre, for example distance or e-learning, the following code should be entered: ZZ99 9ZZ.
18 May 2022 11:53
If you need a report of all Advanced Loan learners see PDSAT report 22A-104
18 May 2022 12:18
Thank you Martin and Steve...You're both Superstars!
18 May 2022 12:52 (Edited)