P60 Peer testing and copy of correspondence from 2013
From: SHAW Alyson Sent: 05 March 2015 14:16 To: MATHISON Anne; FLEMING Greg Cc: SMULSKI Pamela Subject: PPP003 P60 Peer Testing
I have checked P60 output and it looks in order. File contains home addresses and I have cross checked 4 of them to make sure they are the correct ones (Employees 112730,1000,112721 and Greg F).
2 points to mention:
1) Sometimes the house number appears on a different line to the rest of the address. This is as a result of changes that were made to some addresses for RTI a couple of years ago. I mentioned it at the time and said it would result in this happening. Payroll accepted it at the time. From correspondence the plan was that address formats would be standardised in the system so that they were all the same. However, doesn't look like this ever happened as we still have mixed formats. The mixture of formats means we can't code for it. Copy of my correspondence from the time is attached and I don't think there's anything we can do about it. Last 2 years have been the same.
2) I notice that the bit with the university address in it has no post code. I am not treating this as a peer test fail as this is not something that we change. Greg just changed the code for the recipient address.
So - fine to go into test. Would be good to try a print output as soon as can in case there are issues with that side of things (although not sure what could do if there were!) . Print issues would merit a support call.
Alyson
and
-----Original Message----- From: SHAW Alyson Sent: 16 April 2013 13:39 To: MCLAREN Susan; BANKS Ann; HEYN Ana; STUART Nikki; MATHISON Anne Cc: CHAPPELL Kathleen; FOX Terry; MA Defeng Subject: RE: Addresses in HR
Ok thanks.
The P60s do include the first two address lines and from a purely practical standpoint it will work, but the output format is going to look weird as it will just output the number in the top line and the rest of the address underneath. The question is will that be acceptable? If it is then that's fine but if it isn't then we need to work out what to do with the P60 addresses. We will be running the P60s before May so might still have inconsistencies at that point.
Have to confess I don't know what the P45s do but would assume it is the same.
Kathy - would it be ok for the P60 (and possibly P45) output to come out with the number and street on different lines?
Alyson
-----Original Message-----
From: MCLAREN Susan
Sent: 16 April 2013 13:25
To: SHAW Alyson; BANKS Ann; HEYN Ana; STUART Nikki; MATHISON Anne
Cc: CHAPPELL Kathleen; FOX Terry; MA Defeng
Subject: RE: Addresses in HR
Hi Alyson,
As I said in my second email we do not feed Home addresses to any downstream systems, not sure how this change would effect P60s or P45s as I believe we already include the first 2 address lines in these, but payroll can correct me if I am wrong?
All home addresses effected by Auto enrolment have already been updated and my team are already working through changing the remaining 11000 records with the aim to have all these changes done by end of May. The eRecruitment system has already been changed to bring the new address format into Oracle and the HR Teams have all been given instructions on the format they should use if they need to change a home address (also Payroll already know the format that needs to be entered). This only leave those staff who now and in the future might change their home address which as why I am looking for the field names to be re labelled ASAP.
Thanks
Susan
******************************************
Susan McLaren
-----Original Message-----
From: SHAW Alyson Sent: 16 April 2013 13:00 To: BANKS Ann; HEYN Ana; STUART Nikki; MATHISON Anne Cc: CHAPPELL Kathleen; MCLAREN Susan; FOX Terry; MA Defeng Subject: RE: Addresses in HR
Sorry for missing you off the original Ann.
I am not questioning the requirement to get the addresses into a specific format for RTI and auto-enrolment if that is what we have to do and uniformity of formats would make all our lives easier.
However what was worrying me is that I was not aware that any checking of downstream systems had been scheduled in and I think that this will affect the addresses that are on the P60s which we are working on at the moment. Ana also mentioned P45.
Am also concerned that as things stand we still don't have uniformity of formats. Have all the addresses currently on the system been updated or do we have a mix of new and 'old' format ones and what would the roll out plan be? Does this affect the interface between HR and eRecruitment as well or is eRecruitment now storing addresses in the format we need?
All I'm saying is that we need to schedule time asap to investigate any side effects. If this has all been scheduled and I just didn't know because have not been directly involved then apologies for that but I thought I should raise it to avoid nasty last minute surprises.
Regards
Alyson
-----Original Message-----
From: BANKS Ann Sent: 16 April 2013 12:29 To: SHAW Alyson; HEYN Ana; STUART Nikki; MATHISON Anne Cc: CHAPPELL Kathleen; MCLAREN Susan; FOX Terry Subject: FW: Addresses in HR
Dear Alyson et all,
Kathy has kindly forwarded me the email below as I was not included in the original.
The interfaces required for auto enrolment insist on the address fields being in a unified format. When RTI is implemented in a few months the interface for that will also require uniformed format for addresses. We analysed the format requirements for both auto enrolment and RTI for compatibility before requesting the change. Of course we understand that downstream systems will need to be checked but that is the nature of the beast with any change and the address format must comply with the format required for the legislative downloads.
If IS can come up with a way to ensure the auto enrolment and RTI interfaces work each month with the current array of address formats in the system we would be happy to hear about it but quite frankly the addresses in the system at the moment are in a mess so uniformity in my view is certainly the way forward.
Regards
Ann
-----Original Message-----
From: CHAPPELL Kathleen Sent: 16 April 2013 11:56 To: BANKS Ann Subject: FW: Addresses in HR
Hi
This was sent today and noticed you are not on the list.
Kathy
-----Original Message-----
From: SHAW Alyson Sent: 16 April 2013 11:20 To: MCLAREN Susan; CHAPPELL Kathleen Cc: HEYN Ana; STUART Nikki; MATHISON Anne; MA Defeng Subject: Addresses in HR
Hi both
Ana asked me a question about configuring addresses in SSHR today as she has call open to change the address format . From my chat with Ana it sounds like this was needed for auto-enrolment (or RTI can't remember which!) and that some addresses have already been changed manually to set them to this format inside HR. The changes to SSHR are so that when staff members make changes their address will also change to this new format. My understanding is that you want the first line to only have the house number and then the second line would have the street. For example my address 41 Broomhall Place which currently has all of this in line 1 would then have 41 in line 1 and Broomhall Place in line 2.
I had raised concerns about changing address formats in HR when this was mentioned a while ago but had thought that it had been decided not to go ahead with it and that an alternative solution had been found. I'm worried that this will result in dodgy output for P60s or anything else that does address formatting of any sort, particularly if we have some addresses in the system in one format and some in another as this will make it very hard (if not impossible) to code round. There could be knock on effects for downstream systems that get fed address details, albeit I'm not sure if addresses are in any of the HR feeds anyway. Main concerns are P60's and maybe P45's or pension stuff that gets sent out.
Just wanted to double check especially since it could affect the P60's - can't tell yet for sure since can't get them to run! If we definitely need to have address format changes then will need to set aside time to investigate potential knock on effects and sort out workarounds if necessary.
Regards
Alyson
Alyson Shaw