Repeat claim (car) requires value to be entered each time by CW

[userresearcher]

After caseworker enters a value for car journey (shouldn't this be miles, not £?), subsequent claims show this as £0.00. Repeating the journey always involves the CW to put in a value, so it never auto approves.

Issue explained here

[tmrowe]

This is happening because when a car expense is input on the external site it's value defaults to 0 (as the value will be calculated by the APVS provider based on the claimants home address and the prison they are visiting). When a repeat claim is being built on the external site we currently retrieve the Cost submitted by the user for all expenses, NOT the ApprovedCost. Therefore the cost for cars is always returned as 0.

As well as being an issue for car expenses using the Cost rather than the ApprovedCost is also an issue for all other expense types in that non approved costs can be auto approved. Take the following example: A claimant submits a cost of £20. This is then approved by an APVS Provider as £18. The visitor then makes a repeat claim. The amount set for the repeat claim is the amount they claimed in their initial claim (£20) not the previously approved £18. If this £20 cost is within the variance allowed for auto approval it would pass through and be auto approved as £20 despite it having been reduced by the APVS Provider in the previous claim.

To resolve this we should only ever use the ApprovedCost column rather than the Cost column in our table functions called by the external site when generating a repeat claim.

[userresearcher]

When a person first claims for a car journey, I believe the figure that should be shown on the summary page should be the distance in miles if this can be auto-calculated. If not, a note should appear to let the visitor know this figure will be calculated based on distance and 13p a mile, and will display on their approval email. I don’t believe the variance would apply for a car journey because this would always be a fixed distance at a fixed rate, and the visitor will have no control over this. The difference would be if the rate was to go up or down which would result in a different £ amount, but presumably a rule would then apply to ever car journey impacted by this change. Certainly the £ that is approved would make complete sense for repeat claims. Also in other cases where, for example, they took a taxi but the equivalent pubic transport value was used. It would make sense to allow repeat claims based on the lower agreed amount rather than always send for manual processing, where the same lower amount would then be used each time. Paul From: Thomas Rowe <notifications@github.com> Reply-To: ministryofjustice/apvs-asynchronous-worker <reply@reply.github.com> Date: Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 15:56 To: ministryofjustice/apvs-asynchronous-worker <apvs-asynchronous-worker@noreply.github.com> Cc: Paul Greasby <p.greasby@kainos.com>, Author <author@noreply.github.com> Subject: Re: [ministryofjustice/apvs-asynchronous-worker] Repeat claim (car) requires value to be entered each time by CW (#61) This is happening because when a car expense is input on the external site it's value defaults to 0 (as the value will be calculated by the APVS provider based on the claimants home address and the prison they are visiting). When a repeat claim is being built on the external site we currently retrieve the Cost submitted by the user for all expenses, NOT the ApprovedCost. Therefore the cost for cars is always returned as 0. This causes an issue in that if the claimant submitted a cost of £20 that was approved by APVS Provider as £18, the repeat claim would not be for the previously approved £18 but rather the originally submitted £20. If this £20 figure is within the variance allowed for auto approval it would pass through and be auto approved as £20 despite it having been reduced by the APVS Provider. To resolve this we should only ever use the ApprovedCost column rather than the Cost column in out table functions called by the external site. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#61 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AXTcE9VR2MLKRh6DF8tOm4WtqU3aoQDKks5rIBGqgaJpZM4LGp2h>. Follow the Kainos buzz on: Twitter<https://twitter.com/kainossoftware> Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/KainosSoftware> Linkedin<http://www.linkedin.com/company/kainos> Youtube<http://www.youtube.com/user/KainosSoftware> Sunday Times Top 100<http://www.kainos.com/kainos-repeats-success-sunday-times-best-companies-work-rankings/> This e-mail is for the intended addressee only and is strictly confidential; if you receive it in error please destroy the message and all copies. Any opinion or information in this email or its attachments that does not relate to Kainos business is personal to the sender and is not endorsed by Kainos. This email has been scanned for viruses but is not guaranteed to be virus free. "Kainos" is the trading name of the Kainos Group of companies; click the link for further information https://www.kainos.com/corporate-information/. Further terms and conditions may be found on our website www.kainos.com

[tmrowe]

Closed by pull request 274 in the External Web repository.