ACT1N or ACT1L

Morning, they no longer get allocated as Non-Levy or Levy, as ACT 1 just signals that they are through the Apprenticeship service account :) that's my understanding anyway - Thanks

The truth is I don’t know as transfers of levy funding are not indicated in any of the provider reports.

What is ACTN and ACTL?

PICS uses ACT1L and ACT1N as internal identifiers to differentiate between Levy and Non-levy, however they are both exported as ACT1. The determination of which contract they fall under is based on their DAS account. Non-levy employers with levy transfer still fall under the Non levy contact, but the funding falls under the Levy funding column in the Apps monthly payment report, not the co-investment column.

We record these learners in PICS as ACT1L.

HTH

Ohhh it’s a PIC’s thing but do you know if the funding line in the reports change when a non-levy employer on DAS if funded by a transfer from a levy employer.

Martin, there is no change to the funding line, Apps monthly payment report extract for a standard non levy learner and a non-levy Levy transfer learner

Martin, that’s that helps identify those funded thought a transfer, what’s your thoughts on the last one could it be non-levy becoming a levy payer but with insufficient funds to cover payment?

Martin,  I have no experience of employers switching from Levy to non-levy or vice versa, so I would have to guess at what the data is showing. The details are pretty much the same as what I see when one of our levy employers runs out of funds, and needs to be invoiced each month for the co-investment contribution. It is definitely showing a shortfall of levy funds dropping in to co-investment, but on a non-levy DAS funding line, so I would expect that there are two possible options, a non-levy becoming a levy payer after the learner has signed up, and not having sufficient funds, having just tipped in to levy, as you suggested. Alternatively it could be non-levy with insufficient Levy transfer to cover the programme, but I think that this would be highly unlikely, if not impossible, as I would expect the transfer to be sufficient to cover the programme. Therefore, I think that your suggestion is the correct one.