LA rejected just to ask to change contact person email (which is used to send notification)

[skishk]

Dear All,

we are facing a problem with large numbers of LA just because the email in the contact person is not the right one.

We understood and had the confirm from the provider that he is using that email to notify the person to sign the LA.

What is happening is the person who receiving this notification, from the partner system, is rejecting the LA with comment like: "i'm not the right person, you have to write or change email with ** ."

as is written in the guide there is no reason to reject the LA, we think is enough to forward the notification to the right person.

the email in the contact person, as specification say, is not there to be used to notify the person to sign the LA, but if someone decide to use it on his own ok but it must no create problems to other partners...

i opened a tkt but it's seems they could do nothing... as always there is no way to find a solution.

is it possibile to find a solution all together? or could you suggest me who can I point the problem to?

thank you

[janinamincer-daszkiewicz]

Please, have a look at: https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-10/User-Guide-Erasmus-Digital-LA_en.pdf. Page 7, section Administrative contact person with extra note, which I copy here:

"What should I do when a wrong contact person has been indicated by the sending institution? If the wrong contact person is indicated by the sending institution, there is no need to reject the learning agree- ment for studies as a change in contacts will not result in a new version of the learning agreement for studies (also see section about changes and corrections below). The student/sending institution can be contacted to change the contact and an updated learning agreement for studies can be retrieved by the receiving institution."

Which ticket is that?

[skishk]

the tkt is ESCI-12412

i already gave this information with link and screenshot of this message... but with no result ...

[janinamincer-daszkiewicz]

Thank you, I will look into it.

[skishk]

this is part of comment received from a rejection of an LA : "Dear partner, dear student, The Erasmus Office is not responsible for signing OLA, only teachers can do it...." and then told us the correct email to send the notification for signing the LA.

the contact person in the LA is not to nominate the signer... but probably in the email they receive is written they are...

this one have a different provider from the one in the tkt... that means the rejection for this reason will increase :(

[sascoms]

We had tens of tens of rejections with the same or similar reasons. And also mentioned such problems in the meetings/tickets etc.

As a provider and sending HEI, I am not responsible to find the contact person or the departmental Erasmus coordinator of the receiving HEI.

With EWP, I send and deliver this LA to the partner IRO via EWP. And from that moment on, it is their responsibility to deliver it to the correct person. Whether this be the IRO itself or a departmental coordinator.

Sorry but that is not the business of the sending HEI. And partner contact person information/blocks should be removed from the LA.

In my opinion, most of the IIA and LA problems arise from the Dashboard's implementations. *

If not mistaken, Dashboard, in OLA, uses the contact person sent in the LA to notify this person via email.

Even maybe there are other providers following the same workflow.

*In the era of digital data exchange, some of the problems also arise from following and taking the IIA/LA PDF templates as base for designing the EWP data exchange. We mentioned this and many other problems in our EWP technical problems reports years ago. Sad to see no improvements..

[demilatof]

In the era of digital data exchange, some of the problems also arise from following and taking the IIA/LA PDF templates as base for designing the EWP data exchange

I agree, but I think it's worse than this. They not only take the IIA/LA PDF templates as base for designing the EWP data exchange, but they completely rethink the process introducing rules that are not in the template and eventually later they would take in consideration of changing the PDF template. Some differences are useful (duration of the agreement detailed at mobility level) other not or of uncertain utility

[kkaraogl]

For the time being, I can comment that what is described in this ticket, is well under our radar. Indeed, there are partners that handle it like the EWP Dashboard does, and others that don't.

After the IIAs' upgrade, the focus is organically shifting to LAs, which is a good thing. Give us time to internally check the situation from all different perspectives, and we will follow up.

[skishk]

Dear @kkaraogl ,

at least did you improved the text of the notification email that partners receive? did you remind them about the rules of rejecting a LA? because the situation is growing and it seems like no action taken until now... and the opened tkt is abandoned no one is answering...

[kkaraogl]

@skishk the SD colleague has already responded, and you should have gotten the answer. If for some reason you haven't received it, please reach out by replying to the relevant ticket thread.

[skishk]

yeah thank you, i received it after the comment here

[skishk]

unfortunately the problem is still unresolved and i not receiving any response from 1 week...

from the comments we still receive on rejection it like in the email is written that is designated to sign the LA and that is completely wrong...

could someone find a solution please? because the last option is to turn off LAs which have this problems.