Start date V first positive register mark

The ILR should always reflect reality and the Start date must be accurate to within 7 days but first evidenced (register) date is the best to go with.

Agree, not least because if Bob withdraws they'll want the start date accurate to the first register mark anyway (doubly so if he's been on programme around 42 days).

And, yes, Bob can't have planned hours that happened before he started (regardless of whether he was already enrolled but just didn't turn up, or whether he just rocked up on the 4 October and that's the first time you'd ever seen him).

Thank you so much both, my gut was telling me this was the case but I was dissapearing down the funding guidance rabbit hole.

Sanity restored!

If someone enrolled on say 02/09/21 with a planned start date of 06/09/21, but didn't turn up until 14/09/2021 because they were ill for the first week, we would count all the hours as that was the plan and the rest of the cohort started on time.

That sort of contradicts the 16-18 guidance: Institutions must use the student’s first date of attendance for learning activity to calculate the 6 week period for determining planned hours.

Yes, it's an annoying quirk because if they attended the first week and then were off sick the second week, we wouldn't change the hours.

The thing is, for 16-18s who complete big programmes, particularly at L3, the guidance to auditors is basically "don't really bother checking them, they're full time" anyway, but that also relies on us being sensible in our reporting...

Jess Reading Yes, it does seem odd that someone who attends week 1 and is off sick for weeks 2 and 3 is fine to keep all their hours and normal dates, but someone who is off sick weeks 1 and 2 should have to have the dates changes and hours reduced, but that is the rules.

Steve Hewitt Nice in theory, but I've never met an auditor that would be so relaxed about the start date vs first attendance. In my experience, they've always been really hard over on this.