Price Amount Above Funding Band Limit

I think this field triggers for a couple of reasons.

1. If you record a total price (TNP1+2) which is more than the funding band max, or
2. If after recording a residual price (TNP3+4), the sum of previous earnings PLUS the new residual price exceeds the funding band max (e.g., the funding band max was 10k, you'd earnt 5k prior to recording a residual price, then adding a TNP3/4 totaling 6k, you'd be 1k over the funding band max, and should expect to see this amount in that field

Ben James Thank you for the explanation. I have an example where, from the very first time a learner appears on this report when they were enrolled, there is a figure in this field. I have confirmed the max funding band as correct on IFATE and we have recorded a prior learning reduction (based on the results of IA, skills scan etc). If another provider had already claimed funding above the reduction applied, would that be the amount being shown? If so, is there a way of finding out how much funding as been claimed by another provider before the TNP is agreed?

Thanks

If another provider had already claimed funding above the reduction applied, would that be the amount being shown?

Yes, sorry, this would likely also trigger the issue. This is on the basis that, according to the technical funding guide:

If the employer or provider changes, we will include any previous earnings for the apprenticeship at a previous employer or provider (based on the ULN) and will only fund up to the band maximum that applied at the start of the programme across all instances of that apprenticeship for that apprentice. 

As for whether there's a way to find out how much funding had been claimed by another provider BEFORE the TNP is agreed.. the answer is, not concretely, or at least, not that I'm aware of. Short of asking (and trusting) what you're told by a learner / employer prior to engaging with them as you have, I don't know how you'd know for certain. In your case you at least now know how much above the funding band you are, and can operate on that basis. 

The PLR is somewhat helpful for this. You'll know for sure whether they have started this Standard before, and you'll know how long they were on programme. What you don't know from there is what the original planned duration was, or what price was charged (though you can often assume band max). 

You'd hope that the apprentice and/or employer would have some info somewhere about planned end date, but that's not always the case. If you can get all four pieces of data (Start Date, Actual End Date, Planned End Date and original price), you can easily calculate what's left (get's more complicated if there have been previous changes of provider or breaks). If you can't get that, you just have to best guess it, set the price, and see if this report throws up a price that's too high.

Remember that the band max that applies is the one that was in place at their original start date on this Standard (always findable from the PLR). A Standard that was £9k max when they first started, and £4k was claimed by another provider, can only have a further £5k claimed, even if the band max is now £10k when they start with you.

We use the PLR to screen earners for past instances of the same apprenticeship, we then calculate the funding used based off the standards recommended delivery length. We then offer that as an estimate of what a shortfall could be, but state that the true figure wouldn't be known until we had gone through out RPL process and submitted data to the DfE.

However, we have recently had a learner where there is no prior apprenticeship on the learners PLR and yet we still have a funding cap issue. I have contacted the DfE but have yet to get a response from them.

Further to the funding capped at old rates. If the old attempt was on programme less than 42 days it will still lock the funding at the old rate, but we found contacting the DfE (case by case) they have authorised us to claim the missing funding from the cap we should get via EAS once the learner leaves programme. Very much not ideal but better then trying to get an employer to agree the shortfall when the DfE themselves dont even consider the prior attempt as a valid start.

That's very useful to know Jack Bamford! What a horrible feature 🙁You'd think they could code around that.

Thanks for asking this question Michelle, it did lead me to things I'd previously missed.