Duplication is the most common ground for refusal

And it is usually foreseeable before submission.

Accrediting bodies are generally reluctant to approve a qualification that substantially replicates one already available, because a proliferation of near-identical credentials confuses employers and learners and dilutes the value of all of them. This is a stated position in most systems and it is applied.

Applicants frequently underestimate the overlap because they are comparing their course to the title of an existing qualification rather than to its content. A comparison at the level of the actual outcomes and their coverage is the analysis required, and doing it honestly sometimes shows that the sensible route is delivering the existing qualification instead.

Where genuine difference exists it needs to be stated precisely: these outcomes are not covered, this level is not available, this context requires something the existing option does not address. A general claim that the existing qualification is not fit for purpose will not survive contact with somebody who knows it.

It is worth doing this analysis at the point of deciding whether to apply, because it is the finding most likely to make the whole exercise unviable, and discovering it after months of development is expensive.

The duplication analysis has a second use beyond the application, which is that it sometimes reveals a better commercial position. A provider that discovers an existing qualification covers most of the ground can deliver that immediately, with no development cost and no accreditation risk, and add a short course covering the difference. That is frequently a better outcome than the one originally intended.