Unfunded (POT1) to Funded (POT2)

It may be ok from the ILR perspective as it reflects an Unfunded Apprenticeship being transferred to a funded Apprenticeship, but I think this may be an issue for DAS, so you need confirmation from the service desk.

Thanks Martin West. A service desk rep has come back with the below;

You can't record two source of funding, it would error.

The guidance states the apprenticeship shouldn't have started prior to reserve funding being set up correctly.

For your ILR submission you would need to withdraw from outset and record again from 1st May 2022.

You would need to take the prior learning now the apprentice has been on programme since October with the apprenticeship service.

I don't altogether know if they've understood the scope of what I've asked - perhaps they think I want to update the SOF rather than closing and then re-opening a new POT? The last sentence is also slightly confusing. What would your assessment be?

Yeah, I don't think they've understood. Your POT1, were you planning to record that as a withdrawal once you were going to switch to funded? That's what I assumed, but what I think the Service Desk hasn't grasped.

You wouldn't have to set up an unfunded apprenticeship in the DAS at all would you? If you withdrew POT1, then re-enrolled with a May start, that would match the new DAS record, so I can't see any technical issues at all. You'd have to be prepared to lose quite a lot of funding though, as you're price could only be for the second period.

The last sentence, I think they mean that, if you had been delivering since Oct 2021, but were only able to start them in May 2022 when the reservation was created, you have to take that 7 months into account as prior KSB when working out your price, which is what you were proposing anyway. So, all you're proposing doing differently from what they suggest, is recording that Oct 21 - May 22 period as an unfunded activity, rather than not recording it at all. In your scenario, the difference is that you can count the OTJ hours.

I agree with Ruth and suggest you run it through FIS and if ok then submit it as it reflect the reality of the situation.

Thanks for your input Ruth Canham-James! Yes, I am proposing we fully withdraw them from POT1. Initially I had considered using code 40, but figured this might cause PDSAT issues, so have settled on accepting it as a full withdrawal.

We do not intend to record anything in DAS any earlier than the May-22 date as we've accepted that this is the absolute earliest we can expect any direct funding, as well as having come to terms with the fact we're going to have to lose a fair bit of money. The funded POT2 will match this start date. We've proposed a brand new TNP which takes into consideration the 7 months the learner has already been on programme, so this will have been accounted for also.

Finally, yes.. the only reason I have proposed we employ an unfunded POT rather than simply not recording it at all is because I don't want the learner to lose the OTJ they've completed, and because otherwise the minimum duration will fall below the 12 month threshold otherwise.

Martin West - thank you!