April 2023

Update to the Return to Learning Process Automation tracker

The Return to Learning Process Automation tracker will now return only one set of negotiated prices. This will enable the correct total negotiated price to be reported to the ESFA. The most recent price for training and for assessment will be returned when the ‘Return to learning’ tracker is processed. The system uses the existing logic for identifying the programme aim (aim type 1, ZPROG001) to be returned.

• The system identifies the most recent TNP1 or TNP3 by its Financial record date.
• The system identifies the most recent TNP2 or TNP4 by its Financial record date.

The identified records are used to generate the new financial records on the returned programme aim when the tracker is saved with a status of ‘Process’. The Type and Financial code will be the same as the most recent financial record identified.

Note that where there are multiple training or assessment price records, the system cannot differentiate between them. As there should only be one training and assessment price on any date, this scenario is not supported.

epaPRO update

The ‘Town’ field is now mandatory for epaPRO validation. For Apprentices who do not have the 'Town' field present in their employer's record, the system will not run the automated nightly registration task. This is because epaPRO has made it a mandatory field, and will return an error in case this field is not specified.

In addition, the following minor changes have been made:

• The ‘Address’ field is now called 'Company Address Line 1'.
• The ‘Postcode’ field is now called 'Company Postcode'.

Bug fixes

• Replacing User id with Admin id in User profile URL in Aptem Classic was showing some additional password-related information in the audit trail section. This has now been fixed.
• The Employer CSV field titled "Country" was actually populating the "County" field. This has now been rectified.
• A customer reported that the option to enable epaPRO via the Integrations tab was only available when other integrations such as Calendar or Zendesk were also enabled. This has now been fixed.
• A customer reported seeing the following warning message: 'This learner does not have an Apprenticeship Delivery Programme applied' even though the learner was already on a delivery programme. This has now been fixed.
• There was a concern around the working of some Process Automation trackers – in case of a learner on a 365-day duration programme, the process automation tracker could not be created. This was because the system’s validation for the new planned end date field excluded the first day from the calculation for all years and programme durations. We have addressed this issue in the two employer trackers – ‘Change of Working conditions’ and ‘Change of Employer’. The minimum duration is now inclusive of the start date and the absolute minimum duration is now calculated correctly - as 365 days.
• An incorrect EPAPro Learner status was being displayed for learners who were actually in the 'Back into Learning' and 'In-Assessment' status. For learners with 'Back to learning' status, the UI displayed 'In Assessment' instead. And for learners with 'In Assessment' status, the UI did not show any status. This has been fixed - when ‘Back into Learning’ status is set by import, this status will show in the UI.
• When importing new users to Aptem, the owner of the Employer organisation specified in the CSV was erroneously being changed to show the name of the administrator uploading the CSV. This issue has now been fixed, and importing a user does not alter the owner of employer organisation.
• A customer reported that some trackers were stuck in the ‘Process’ status and the UI stopped showing further updates. In this state, the tracker could neither be rejected nor closed. The issue was identified and resolved, and trackers in the ‘Process’ state are now processed and closed.
• In another case involving trackers, a learner was to be withdrawn, and the status of a withdrawal tracker was showing as ‘Process’, but the tracker was not getting processed. The issue was identified and resolved.
• A customer reported seeing a ‘500 Error message’ when trying to expand a review section. This was the case for all learners that had been completed by a certain administrator. This issue was resolved.
• When trying to view the PDF file of digital asset evidence for a learner in learning plan component, there was a display issue, and a portion of the user’s answers were missing. This has now been fixed.
• In one case, a tripartite review was showing as ‘In Progress’, even though the review had been completed and the review PDF had been generated. The review should have moved to the ‘Finished’ section, and should have had a status of 'Awaiting Signature'. This issue has now been resolved. 
• In one instance, the review document PDF was displaying some additional fields that were not in the HTML version. This has been resolved, and the PDF review document now matches the HTML version.