Vacation days balance has changed - how to edit this?

Hi Edda - I can't remember exactly how the absence info was previously displayed, but I don’t remember it deducting planned absences from future periods (i.e. outside of the current absence year)? I think it only displayed that time off when you moved in to the relevant year. Either way, I don't believe the new layout is customisable in the way that you would like it to be.

With regards to tagging Moe for help - please see Daniele’s post on this: 

Hi, before it deducted all approved vacation days from the balance.

Ok - thank you for the link - for some reason it didn’t open for me.

Hi ​@Edda van der Ende,

The new balance overview really focuses on the current period set for the employee. So in the case of your screenshot, it shows data for 2025.

There was an update in regards to if planned days for the next period are deducted from the current entitlement. As far as I know, this was done because the entitlement for the next accrual period is not yet granted which led to negative balances when the entirety of the next year was already planned.

The overview shows time off scheduled and approved for the current period. This element also calls out planned time off for future periods. So the employee has a chance to see how many vacation days they have already planned for future periods.

You can find more on this here:  Explore your Time off page

In terms of updates, you can find an overview of all updates here which also included this update: Personio Product Updates

Best,

Katharina

Hi ​@KatharinaS. 

Thank you for the clarification. In Finland the “vacation year” is 1 April - 31 March. This means that all winter vacations tend to be during Q1 and the days used are from the same ‘vacation year’ as e.g. previous summer. I was wondering if this was taken into account when planning this update?

Hi ​@Edda van der Ende,

Yes, this was taken into account 🙂

So the period that is shown and applied depends on the settings in the assigned time off policy. So if the accrual year start is set to April 1 in the assigned policy, this will be reflected:

In the test from my screenshot, those planned days are in April 2026, so within the next accrual period.

I hope this clarifies the new display 🙂

Best,

Katharina

Hi ​@KatharinaS. - thank you. I tried to search in Help Center, but I couldn’t find how I can adjust our current “Yearly vacation” -policy to have the above accrual period. Could you help me?

Hi ​@Edda van der Ende,

Of course 🙂

You would need to setup a new time off policy in Settings > Time off in the respective time off type.

Feel free to copy the existing one if the only thing that you want to edit is the accrual year. That way you can keep the existing settings.

Once you created the new policy, you make the respective settings. The important setting is in step 2 Granting. Here you select specific date and set this to April 1.

You save your new time off policy.

The next step would be to assign the policy to employees. I would suggest testing it in one employee profile before assigning it to all to see the product behaviour.

It is your decision from when on you want to assign the policy, e.g. January 1, 2026 or April 1, 2026. Either way, one of the policies would be “interrupted” by the other.

I would suggest choosing a future date to not mess with historic data but the decision on how to handle this is again yours.

You can find more on this here:

• Create time off policies
• Manage time off policies

Best,

Katharina

Sounds and looks good. Only thing is that my Personio doesn’t look like yours. It doesn’t have the “copy option” and when I tried to create one from scratch, it didn’t give the part where one could choose when the accrual starts. I did this under Settings → Time off.

Hi ​@KatharinaS. 

Thank you - I was able to create a new vacation policy and tested it on myself. We will need to take out a report or similar to see everybody’s vacation day balance now in order to double check that they are accurate after transferring to a new policy, but that is just technical work. I guess we can move ahead from here :)