Sponsor Licence Compliance Checklist for Employers

Sponsor Licence Compliance Checklist: At a Glance

A sponsor licence carries ongoing compliance duties throughout the life of the licence. Employers need systems that continue to work as sponsored workers join, change roles, move location, take absence, receive salary changes or leave the organisation.

For sponsor licence holders, compliance spans sponsored worker management, record keeping, right to work checks, Home Office reporting, use of the Sponsor Management System (SMS), Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) processes and changes affecting the business or its sponsored workforce.

The key compliance test is whether those controls work together. SMS information should reconcile with HR records, payroll and the reality of each sponsored worker’s employment, while relevant changes need to reach the people responsible for sponsorship early enough for any required action to be taken.

This guide provides a sponsor licence compliance checklist for reviewing those arrangements, testing whether they operate in practice and identifying weaknesses that require investigation, remediation or re-testing.

 

Section A: What Should a Sponsor Licence Compliance Checklist Cover?

 

A sponsor licence compliance checklist should test the organisation’s ability to demonstrate compliance across the full sponsorship framework. That includes governance, sponsored worker monitoring, record keeping, right to work, reporting, CoS controls, HR systems and organisational change.

As part of the review, employers should be able to demonstrate that:

 

• responsibility for sponsor licence compliance is clearly allocated;
• sponsor licence key personnel remain suitable and their details are current;
• SMS access is properly controlled;
• multi-factor authentication requirements are being met by relevant SMS users;
• inactive or unnecessary SMS user accounts are identified and managed;
• all sponsored workers can be identified and reconciled against the SMS;
• sponsored workers are carrying out the roles for which they are sponsored;
• salaries, working hours and working arrangements remain compliant;
• required records are held and can be retrieved when needed;
• right to work checks have been completed correctly;
• reportable changes are identified and reported within the applicable timeframe;
• Certificates of Sponsorship are assigned through an appropriate internal process;
• HR systems are capable of monitoring relevant immigration and employment events;
• organisational changes are assessed for sponsor licence implications; and
• the organisation would be able to demonstrate its compliance arrangements during a Home Office compliance check, whether conducted through a physical visit or remotely.

 

The checklist should be used as a live assurance tool. Sponsorship risk changes as workers join and leave, duties and salaries change, businesses restructure, key personnel move roles and immigration permission approaches expiry.

The review should therefore test whether the organisation’s controls continue to identify those events, assess their sponsorship implications and produce a clear record of any action taken. Where a process exists on paper but does not operate consistently in practice, the checklist should expose that weakness and trigger further investigation.

 

Back to top

 

Section B: Using This Sponsor Compliance Checklist

 

Employers can use this checklist as an internal review of their current sponsor licence arrangements.

For each area, the organisation should consider three questions:

 

1. Do we have a process?

 

There should be a defined way of identifying and dealing with the relevant sponsor compliance requirement.

 

2. Does the process actually operate in practice?

 

A written policy will provide limited protection if managers, HR personnel or sponsor licence users do not follow it.

 

3. Can we evidence what we have done?

 

The organisation should be able to produce records showing how its sponsor duties have been met.

The review should therefore test both the organisation’s documented procedures and what happens operationally.

For example, it may not be enough for an employer to have a policy requiring HR to monitor sponsored worker absences. The employer should also be able to show that absences are actually recorded, relevant cases are escalated and any resulting sponsor reporting requirement is considered.

Similarly, maintaining accurate information within an HR system will not necessarily be sufficient if changes that have immigration implications are not communicated to the person responsible for the sponsor licence.

A useful way to approach the exercise is to compare four sources of information:

SMS records → personnel records → payroll records → actual working arrangements

Where these do not correspond, the discrepancy should be investigated.

The objective is to identify compliance gaps, understand why they have arisen and determine what corrective action may be required.

Completing a sponsor licence compliance checklist does not in itself guarantee compliance. The Home Office can examine the underlying systems, records and working practices of the organisation and may consider whether the sponsor is genuinely operating the procedures it claims to have in place.

Home Office compliance activity can include announced or unannounced visits, digital compliance checks and remote interviews. Sponsors should therefore operate on the basis that their systems and records need to withstand scrutiny as they stand, rather than relying on an opportunity to prepare them retrospectively.

The following checklist takes employers through the principal areas that should form part of an internal sponsor compliance review.

 

Back to top

 

Section C: Sponsor Licence Governance Checklist

 

Effective sponsor licence compliance starts with governance. The organisation should be able to identify who is responsible for the licence, who manages day-to-day sponsorship activity and how compliance issues are escalated when they arise.

Problems can develop where responsibility becomes fragmented over time. The individuals involved when the sponsor licence was first obtained may change roles or leave the organisation, while new HR personnel or managers may assume responsibilities without fully understanding the sponsor duties that apply.

Employers should therefore review the governance of their sponsor licence as part of any compliance check.

 

1. Is Responsibility for Sponsor Compliance Clearly Allocated?

 

The organisation should have clearly defined responsibility for managing its sponsor licence.

The compliance review should establish:

 

• who has overall responsibility for sponsor compliance;
• who manages day-to-day sponsorship activity;
• who monitors sponsored workers;
• who is responsible for identifying reportable events;
• who makes reports through the SMS;
• who oversees Certificates of Sponsorship;
• who monitors immigration permission and right to work;
• who maintains the required sponsor records;
• who deals with questions or potential compliance breaches; and
• who provides cover when the principal person responsible is absent.

 

Responsibility should also be understood outside the immediate immigration or HR function.

Line managers, payroll personnel and recruitment teams can all become aware of information that has sponsor compliance implications. A line manager, for example, may agree a change in duties or working location without appreciating that the change needs to be considered from an immigration perspective.

Employers should therefore have a process for relevant information to reach the person responsible for sponsor compliance.

A useful practical test is to ask:

If something changed today affecting a sponsored worker, who within the organisation would identify the change, who would assess its immigration implications and who would make any necessary report to the Home Office?

If the answer is unclear, the organisation may have a governance gap.

 

2. Is the Authorising Officer Still Appropriate?

 

The Authorising Officer is a central figure in the organisation’s sponsor licence arrangements and should retain sufficient seniority and authority to oversee sponsorship activity effectively.

As part of the compliance review, employers should check whether the Authorising Officer:

 

• remains employed or engaged by the organisation in an appropriate capacity;
• continues to hold a sufficiently senior position;
• understands their responsibilities in relation to the sponsor licence;
• maintains appropriate oversight of the organisation’s sponsorship activity;
• has access to the information needed to exercise that oversight;
• is informed of material sponsor compliance issues;
• understands how sponsorship responsibilities are being managed operationally; and
• remains an appropriate person to hold the role.

 

The Authorising Officer should not exist merely as a name recorded against the licence. There should be meaningful oversight of the organisation’s sponsorship arrangements.

For larger organisations, much of the day-to-day work may properly be undertaken by HR, immigration teams or other authorised personnel. The compliance question is whether appropriate governance and oversight remain in place.

Employers should also consider whether any changes affecting the Authorising Officer have been dealt with appropriately.

Holding the Authorising Officer role does not, by itself, provide access to the Sponsor Management System. If the Authorising Officer requires SMS access, they must also hold an appropriate SMS user role.

 

3. Are the Key Contact and Level 1 Users Current?

 

Sponsor licence personnel can easily become outdated, particularly where there has been staff turnover, restructuring or changes within the HR function.

Employers should review the individuals currently recorded in sponsor management roles and confirm that the information remains accurate.

Checks should include whether:

 

• the Key Contact remains appropriate;
• current Level 1 Users still require access;
• individuals who have left the organisation have been removed where necessary;
• contact details remain current;
• there is sufficient Level 1 User coverage to manage the licence effectively;
• responsibility is not concentrated unnecessarily in one individual;
• users understand the scope of their role and responsibilities; and
• any changes to key personnel have been dealt with correctly.

 

The Key Contact acts as the organisation’s principal contact with UKVI but does not obtain SMS access simply by holding that role. If the Key Contact needs to use the SMS, they must also be appointed as an appropriate SMS user.

Sponsors should also review any existing Level 2 Users. Since 9 September 2026, new Level 2 Users can no longer be appointed. Existing Level 2 Users need to be converted to Level 1 Users, where eligible, or have their accounts deactivated by 8 March 2027. Remaining Level 2 User accounts are due to be deactivated after that date.

This makes it particularly important for employers to review their existing SMS user population and ensure they will retain sufficient eligible Level 1 User coverage.

An organisation should avoid discovering that its sponsor licence information is outdated only when it needs to make an urgent report or respond to Home Office contact.

 

4. Is SMS Access Properly Controlled?

 

Access to the Sponsor Management System should be treated as a compliance control rather than simply an administrative convenience.

The SMS contains important information about the sponsor licence and sponsored workers and is used to carry out significant sponsorship functions. Employers should know who has access and why.

As part of the checklist, review:

 

• who currently has SMS access;
• whether each user still requires access;
• whether access has been addressed when users leave or change roles;
• whether users access the system using their own credentials;
• whether login details are kept secure;
• whether unnecessary or historic users remain associated with the licence;
• whether there is adequate cover if the principal SMS user is unavailable; and
• whether responsibility for actions taken through the SMS can be identified.

 

Employers should also consider operational resilience. Where only one person understands the SMS or manages all sponsorship activity, absence, resignation or unexpected departure can create immediate compliance difficulties.

The organisation should therefore have sufficient knowledge and access to continue managing the licence when key individuals are unavailable.

 

5. Are Multi-Factor Authentication and SMS User Details Current?

 

The Home Office began rolling out mandatory multi-factor authentication for SMS users on 3 September 2026. MFA applies immediately to organisations granted a sponsor licence on or after 9 September 2026.

Level 1 Users should have accurate date of birth, mobile number and email details recorded for authentication purposes, while any remaining Level 2 Users should have an accurate email address. Passwords, user IDs and one-time passcodes must not be shared.

The review should consider:

 

• whether Level 1 Users have current date of birth, mobile number and email details;
• whether any remaining Level 2 Users have a current email address;
• whether users can receive and complete multi-factor authentication prompts;
• whether passwords, user IDs and one-time passcodes are kept individual and not shared;
• whether changes to user contact information are updated promptly;
• whether there is sufficient SMS coverage if a user cannot access their account; and
• whether internal procedures reflect the current authentication requirements.

 

This is both an access and resilience issue. A sponsor may face practical compliance difficulties if the person responsible for an urgent report cannot access the SMS because their authentication details are outdated or unavailable.

 

6. Are SMS User Accounts Being Kept Active?

 

Sponsors should also monitor inactive SMS user accounts.

Under the current Home Office regime, an SMS account is treated as inactive after 12 months without access. Affected inactive Level 1 Users are normally given 3 months to log in and check or update their details before the account can be deactivated.

The compliance review should establish:

 

• when relevant SMS users last accessed the system;
• whether any user accounts are at risk of being treated as inactive;
• whether unnecessary accounts should instead be formally removed;
• whether the organisation has at least one active and eligible Level 1 User; and
• whether sufficient continuity arrangements exist if an account is deactivated.

 

Particular care is required where an organisation has only one Level 1 User. If no active Level 1 User remains, the licence can be suspended and the sponsor given 28 days to nominate at least one eligible Level 1 User, with revocation normally following if the position is not corrected.

The Home Office recommends that a Level 1 User accesses the SMS at least once a month.

 

7. Is the Information on the Sponsor Licence Current?

 

The sponsor licence should accurately reflect the organisation that is actually operating.

Employers should compare the information held by UKVI with the organisation’s current circumstances.

The review should consider changes involving:

 

• business and trading details;
• registered or principal addresses;
• operating locations;
• branches;
• key personnel;
• contact information;
• organisational structure;
• business activities; and
• other material changes affecting the licensed organisation.

 

This is particularly important where the business has grown or changed significantly since the licence was granted.

Changes that may appear routine from a commercial perspective can have sponsor licence implications. Moving premises, restructuring a group, acquiring another business or changing ownership should therefore trigger an immigration compliance review rather than being treated solely as a corporate or HR matter.

A sponsor licence is not transferable. Changes involving ownership, mergers, takeovers, de-mergers, TUPE transfers or changes to the employing legal entity can therefore require more than a simple amendment to the existing licence and should be reviewed carefully before and after the transaction.

 

8. Governance Compliance Test

 

At the end of this part of the review, the organisation should be able to answer yes to the following:

☐ We know who has overall responsibility for the sponsor licence.

☐ Day-to-day sponsor compliance responsibilities are clearly allocated.

☐ Relevant HR, recruitment, payroll and management personnel know when issues should be escalated.

☐ Our Authorising Officer remains appropriate and provides effective oversight.

☐ Our Key Contact and Level 1 Users are current.

☐ Any remaining Level 2 Users have been reviewed in light of the 2026 phase-out arrangements.

☐ SMS access is limited to appropriate users and is properly controlled.

☐ SMS user contact information is current.

☐ Multi-factor authentication is operating correctly for relevant users.

☐ SMS accounts are monitored against the 12-month inactivity threshold and any Home Office inactive-user notice or 3-month remediation period is actioned.

☐ We maintain at least one active and eligible Level 1 User and understand the 28-day post-suspension requirement if no active Level 1 User remains.

☐ We have sufficient cover if a key sponsor licence user is absent or leaves.

☐ The information held in relation to our sponsor licence reflects the organisation’s current circumstances.

☐ Corporate changes are escalated for sponsor licence review.

☐ We understand that a sponsor licence is not transferable between legal entities.

Where any of these questions cannot be answered confidently, the organisation should investigate the position and determine whether corrective action, an SMS report, an application or other action may be required.

Strong sponsor governance provides the foundation for the remaining compliance systems. The next stage is to test whether the organisation’s records of its sponsored workforce correspond with what those workers are actually doing in practice.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section D: Sponsored Worker Checklist

 

Sponsor licence compliance requires employers to maintain effective oversight of their sponsored workforce throughout the period of sponsorship.

The information originally provided when a Certificate of Sponsorship was assigned should not be treated as a historic snapshot that can simply be filed away. Employers need to remain alert to changes in the worker’s role, salary, duties, working arrangements, location, attendance and employment status that could affect their sponsorship.

A useful starting point is to reconcile what the organisation believes is happening with what its systems and records actually show.

 

1. Do You Know Exactly Who Is Currently Sponsored?

 

The organisation should be able to produce an accurate and current list of all workers it sponsors.

This may sound straightforward, but discrepancies can arise where workers leave, sponsorship arrangements change, Certificates of Sponsorship are assigned but not used, HR systems are updated without corresponding sponsor action or responsibility for sponsorship is divided between different teams.

Employers should reconcile:

 

• current sponsored worker records;
• the Sponsor Management System;
• Certificates of Sponsorship assigned by the organisation;
• HR personnel records;
• payroll records;
• immigration records;
• current employment status; and
• information held by any external immigration advisers involved in managing sponsorship.

 

The objective is to establish a reliable sponsored worker population against which the remaining compliance checks can be carried out.

Particular attention should be given to apparent anomalies, such as a worker appearing on one system but not another, a former employee remaining on internal sponsorship records or an individual whose current immigration position is unclear.

A practical compliance test is:

Can the organisation produce an accurate list of every worker it currently sponsors and reconcile each individual against the relevant HR, payroll, immigration and SMS records?

If not, the discrepancy should be investigated before the organisation assumes its sponsored workforce records are complete.

 

2. Is Each Sponsored Worker Still Performing the Sponsored Role?

 

Employers should check whether each sponsored worker’s actual employment continues to correspond with the role on which their sponsorship is based.

The review should compare the worker’s current position with the information associated with their sponsorship, including where relevant:

 

• job title;
• occupation code;
• substantive duties and responsibilities;
• level of seniority;
• working hours;
• salary;
• work location; and
• wider working arrangements.

 

The emphasis should be on what the worker actually does, rather than relying solely on their contractual job title.

Current sponsor guidance requires sponsors to ensure that a sponsored worker’s actual role corresponds with the role and job description for which sponsorship was assigned. A job title may remain unchanged while the substance of the role has moved materially away from the sponsored position.

Roles naturally evolve. An employee may take on additional responsibilities, move between teams, receive a promotion or have their duties reorganised. Not every operational change will necessarily create a sponsor compliance problem, but relevant changes should be identified and assessed rather than allowed to happen without immigration consideration.

Employers should be particularly cautious where the worker’s actual duties appear materially different from the role for which sponsorship was originally granted. Where the actual role does not correspond with the occupation code or job description on the Certificate of Sponsorship and the change is not permitted, this can amount to a mandatory ground for revocation.

A useful test is to take a sample of sponsored workers and ask their line managers to describe what those employees actually do.

That description can then be compared with the job description, HR records and sponsorship information.

If those accounts differ materially, the employer should establish why and assess whether sponsor reporting, a new Certificate of Sponsorship, a new immigration application or other action may be required.

 

3. Is Each Sponsored Worker Being Paid Correctly?

 

Sponsored worker pay should form part of the compliance review because salary information can be relevant both to the worker’s immigration permission and to the sponsor’s ongoing duties.

For each sponsored worker, employers should consider whether:

 

• the worker’s current salary corresponds with the relevant sponsorship records;
• payroll records support the salary the organisation believes is being paid;
• working hours remain consistent with the sponsored arrangement;
• salary changes have been identified and assessed;
• non-absence-related reductions in pay have been reported through the SMS and assessed for continued eligibility;
• absence-related pay reductions have been assessed under the separate unpaid or reduced-pay absence rules;
• periods of unpaid leave or reduced pay have been identified;
• relevant deductions have been considered where necessary; and
• the worker continues to satisfy the applicable requirements for their sponsored role and immigration route.

 

The review should not rely only on the employee’s stated annual salary.

Payroll information should be examined to determine what has actually been paid and whether there are any unexplained differences between the sponsored salary, contractual arrangements and payroll records.

The Home Office can compare sponsor information with other government data, including HMRC information relating to worker pay. Employers should therefore ensure that sponsored salary information is capable of being reconciled with the remuneration actually processed through payroll.

Where pay has changed, the organisation should establish when the change occurred and why. A non-absence-related salary reduction must be reported through the SMS. An ordinary salary increase does not generally require reporting, except where a relevant increase follows registration of a sponsored pre-registration nurse or midwife.

Employers should also ensure that payroll teams understand that changes affecting sponsored workers can have immigration implications. A salary adjustment processed as a routine payroll matter should not bypass the sponsor compliance function.

 

4. Have Changes to Sponsored Employment Been Identified?

 

Changes to employment are a common source of sponsor compliance risk because they may originate outside the team responsible for immigration.

For each sponsored worker, employers should consider whether there have been changes involving:

 

• job title;
• duties or responsibilities;
• promotion;
• salary;
• working hours;
• work location;
• working arrangements;
• department or reporting line;
• extended absence;
• unpaid leave;
• termination of employment;
• resignation; or
• other material aspects of the sponsored employment.

 

The purpose of the checklist is not to assume that every change must be reported or that every change requires a new immigration application.

Instead, the organisation should be able to demonstrate a process through which relevant changes are identified and assessed.

The correct sequence is:

Employment change → immigration assessment → required sponsor or worker action → evidence of action retained

Depending on the circumstances, the assessment may conclude that a change requires an SMS report, a new Certificate of Sponsorship, action by the worker in relation to their immigration permission, another form of sponsor action or no further action.

The compliance weakness arises where changes take place without anyone considering their sponsorship implications.

For example, a line manager may regard a promotion as entirely positive and routine. From a sponsor compliance perspective, however, the organisation should still consider whether changes to duties, salary, occupation or other relevant aspects of the role have consequences for the worker’s sponsorship.

HR processes should therefore contain a trigger requiring sponsored worker changes to be referred for immigration review where appropriate.

 

5. Are Sponsored Worker Absences Being Monitored?

 

Employers should have systems capable of monitoring the attendance and absence of sponsored workers.

The compliance review should consider how the organisation records and responds to:

 

• sickness absence;
• annual leave;
• unauthorised absence;
• unpaid leave;
• extended absence;
• maternity, paternity or other family-related leave;
• other authorised absences; and
• a worker failing to attend work when expected.

 

The existence of an absence recording system is only part of the test.

The organisation should also consider whether information about potentially relevant absences reaches the people responsible for sponsor compliance.

For example, a line manager may know that a sponsored worker has stopped attending work, while HR or the Level 1 User remains unaware. From an operational perspective, the organisation may have recorded an attendance issue. From a sponsor compliance perspective, however, the internal reporting system may have failed.

Employers should therefore ask:

Who monitors sponsored worker attendance, what events trigger escalation and who determines whether Home Office reporting or other action is required?

The process should also deal with periods of unpaid or reduced-pay absence. Specific rules apply where this exceeds four weeks in total in a calendar year, or during the sponsor’s period of sponsorship responsibility for a Scale-up Worker. The periods can be cumulative. Where a permitted exception applies, the absence must still be reported; where no exception applies, sponsorship will normally need to stop.

Where a reporting obligation arises in relation to a sponsored worker, current sponsor guidance commonly requires the relevant change or event to be reported through the SMS within 10 working days, although the precise obligation and deadline should always be checked against the rule applying to the particular event.

 

6. Sponsored Worker Compliance Test

 

For each sponsored worker, the organisation should be able to answer the following:

☐ We can identify the worker and the basis on which they are currently sponsored.

☐ Their HR, payroll, immigration and sponsorship records can be reconciled.

☐ Their actual role corresponds with the sponsored employment.

☐ Their substantive duties remain consistent with the role for which they are sponsored.

☐ Their current salary and working hours have been checked.

☐ Payroll records support the remuneration information held by the organisation.

☐ Changes to salary, duties, hours or working arrangements are identified and assessed.

☐ Their current work location and working arrangements have been considered.

☐ Attendance and absence are being monitored.

☐ Extended, unauthorised or unpaid/reduced-pay absences are escalated and cumulative periods are assessed against the applicable four-week rule.

☐ Promotions and other employment changes trigger consideration of the sponsorship implications.

☐ Resignations and terminations are communicated promptly to the person responsible for the sponsor licence.

☐ Potentially reportable worker events are assessed against the applicable reporting deadline.

☐ Any sponsor action resulting from a change is recorded and can be evidenced.

The central purpose of this part of the checklist is reconciliation.

The employer should be able to take any sponsored worker and demonstrate a consistent account of their employment across:

Certificate of Sponsorship → SMS → HR file → employment contract → payroll → line management → actual working arrangements

Where one part of that chain tells a materially different story, the discrepancy should be investigated.

This type of worker-by-worker testing is particularly valuable because sponsor compliance weaknesses are not always obvious from reviewing policies alone. A procedure may appear robust on paper while individual employee files reveal that changes have not been captured, records have not been updated or operational practices have moved away from the arrangements on which sponsorship was based.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section E: Record-Keeping Checklist

 

Record keeping is a core part of sponsor licence compliance. Sponsors are required to retain specified documents and information relating to their sponsored workers and sponsorship activities in accordance with the applicable Home Office requirements, including Appendix D to the sponsor guidance.

For employers, the compliance issue is not simply whether documents were collected when the worker joined the organisation. Records need to remain complete, accurate, appropriately retained and capable of being produced when required.

An effective internal review should therefore test both the contents of individual sponsored worker files and the systems used to maintain those records.

 

1. Do You Hold the Required Documents for Every Sponsored Worker?

 

Employers should select sponsored worker files and check them against the current Home Office record-keeping requirements.

The precise documents required will depend on the worker, immigration route, sponsored role and circumstances. Relevant records can include evidence relating to:

 

• the worker’s identity;
• immigration status and permission to work;
• the right to work check carried out by the employer;
• the worker’s current and historic UK residential address, personal email address and telephone number where required;
• date-of-entry evidence where required under Appendix D;
• recruitment and the process through which the worker was appointed;
• the sponsored role;
• the worker’s employment arrangements;
• salary and remuneration;
• working hours;
• qualifications where relevant;
• professional registration or accreditation where relevant;
• the worker’s normal work location;
• attendance and absence where relevant to the sponsor’s monitoring duties; and
• other documents required under the applicable sponsor guidance.

 

Employers should not rely on a historic internal document checklist without checking it against the current version of the Home Office requirements.

Appendix D and related sponsor guidance can change. An organisation may therefore have a well-established filing procedure that no longer captures everything required under the current rules.

The compliance exercise should compare the organisation’s internal requirements with the current Home Office requirements and update internal procedures where necessary.

The review should also consider whether documents are being collected consistently for all sponsored workers. A strong process applied to recent recruits does not resolve gaps in older sponsored worker files.

 

2. Can Sponsored Worker Records Be Retrieved Quickly?

 

Possessing a document somewhere within the organisation is not the same as having an effective sponsor record-keeping system.

Employers should be able to locate relevant sponsored worker records when required.

This is particularly important if the organisation is subject to Home Office compliance activity. Compliance officers may want to inspect records relating to particular sponsored workers and test whether the sponsor can demonstrate that its duties are being met.

The review should therefore consider:

 

• where sponsored worker records are stored;
• whether records are held electronically, physically or through a combination of systems;
• who has access to the records;
• whether relevant documents are stored consistently;
• whether records held across different HR systems can be brought together;
• whether historic records remain accessible;
• whether information held by external advisers is also available to the sponsor where needed; and
• whether records could be produced promptly during Home Office scrutiny.

 

A useful practical test is to select a sponsored worker without advance preparation and attempt to retrieve their complete sponsorship and employment record.

The organisation should be able to reconstruct the relevant history without relying entirely on the knowledge of one employee.

If important records can only be located because a particular HR manager remembers where they are stored, the organisation has a resilience problem even if the documents technically exist.

 

3. Are Records Being Retained for the Required Period?

 

Sponsors should ensure that records are retained for the periods required by the applicable Home Office guidance.

Different documents and circumstances can engage different retention requirements. Employers should therefore avoid applying a single assumed retention period to every sponsor record without checking the current rules.

The review should establish:

 

• whether the organisation has a documented retention policy for sponsorship records;
• whether that policy reflects the current Home Office requirements;
• whether records remain accessible after a sponsored worker leaves;
• whether documents are deleted automatically by HR or document-management systems;
• whether historic electronic records remain retrievable;
• whether relevant records survive changes to HR software or service providers; and
• whether data-retention processes distinguish between ordinary HR records and documents that remain necessary for sponsor compliance.

 

Automatic deletion can create compliance risk if systems remove sponsorship records before the applicable retention period has expired.

Employers should therefore ensure that data protection and document-retention procedures operate alongside sponsor record-keeping requirements rather than independently of them.

The relevant retention period should be checked against the current version of Appendix D and other applicable Home Office guidance for the particular record.

 

4. Are Sponsored Workers’ Contact Details Current?

 

Sponsors are required to maintain specified contact information for sponsored workers.

The organisation should therefore have a process for keeping relevant details current rather than relying solely on the information supplied when the worker joined.

The review should consider whether the organisation holds and preserves the required history of:

 

• UK residential address;
• personal email address; and
• telephone number.

 

Employers should also examine how updates are captured.

For example, if an employee changes their home address through an HR self-service system, the organisation should know whether the information becomes available to those responsible for sponsor compliance and whether any relevant records are updated accordingly.

A policy asking workers to notify HR of changes will be more effective where the organisation also has a practical mechanism for recording and maintaining those changes.

Employers should test a sample of sponsored worker records to determine whether the contact information held is genuinely current.

 

5. Are Recruitment Records Complete?

 

Recruitment records can form an important part of the sponsor’s evidence about how a sponsored worker was appointed and why the role exists.

The compliance review should consider whether the organisation retains the recruitment evidence required by the applicable sponsor guidance.

Depending on the circumstances, relevant evidence may include:

 

• information about how the vacancy arose;
• records of any recruitment exercise undertaken;
• job advertisements where applicable;
• details of the recruitment method used;
• applications or other candidate information where required;
• interview or selection records where relevant;
• the job description;
• evidence explaining how the sponsored worker was identified or recruited; and
• other records required under Appendix D.

 

Employers should not interpret this requirement as meaning that every sponsored vacancy must have been advertised or subjected to a prescribed recruitment exercise.

The former resident labour market test does not apply as a general requirement to Skilled Worker sponsorship. However, sponsors can still be required to retain evidence concerning recruitment and should be capable of explaining how the worker was recruited, including where the role was not advertised.

The important compliance distinction is therefore between:

an obligation to conduct a particular recruitment exercise

and

an obligation to retain appropriate evidence about the recruitment and sponsored role.

The employer should assess its records against the current Appendix D requirements rather than assuming that either no recruitment evidence is required or that historic advertising rules continue to apply.

 

6. Testing the Quality of Sponsored Worker Files

 

A record-keeping audit should go beyond confirming that folders exist.

Select a sample of sponsored workers and test whether their records provide a coherent account of the sponsorship relationship.

For each sampled worker, ask:

 

• Can we identify the immigration route under which the worker is sponsored?
• Can we locate the relevant Certificate of Sponsorship information?
• Can we evidence the right to work check?
• Can we identify the sponsored role and duties?
• Can we evidence the salary and working arrangements?
• Can we explain how the worker was recruited?
• Do we hold the documents required under the current record-keeping rules?
• Are required contact details current?
• Can we identify changes that have occurred since sponsorship began?
• Can we evidence any resulting sponsor action?
• Are the records retained in a way that makes them readily accessible?

 

The employer should then compare the file against other organisational records.

For example:

Sponsored worker file → SMS → employment contract → payroll → attendance records → line manager account

If the personnel file records one salary while payroll shows another, the issue should be investigated.

If the job description describes duties that the line manager says the employee no longer performs, the employer should establish when and why the role changed and whether sponsor action was required.

If the worker’s address has changed but the sponsored worker records have not been updated, the organisation should examine why its information flow failed.

The purpose is to determine whether the records represent the reality of the employment relationship rather than simply whether documents have been collected.

 

7. Record-Keeping Compliance Test

 

At the end of the record-keeping review, the organisation should be able to answer yes to the following:

☐ We know which records are required for sponsored workers.

☐ Our internal document checklist has been reviewed against the current Home Office requirements.

☐ Required records are held for each sponsored worker.

☐ We can retrieve sponsored worker records promptly.

☐ Records are stored consistently across the organisation.

☐ Historic records remain accessible where they are still required.

☐ Our retention procedures reflect the applicable sponsor requirements.

☐ Automated deletion processes do not remove required sponsorship records prematurely.

☐ Sponsored worker contact-detail history is maintained and kept current.

☐ Date-of-entry evidence is retained where required under Appendix D.

☐ Recruitment evidence is retained where required.

☐ Where a role was not advertised, we can evidence or explain the recruitment process as required by the applicable guidance.

☐ Sponsored worker files correspond with HR and payroll records.

☐ Relevant employment changes can be identified from the records.

☐ Sponsor actions and reports can be evidenced where required.

☐ Our records could be produced during an announced or unannounced Home Office compliance check.

☐ Record retrieval does not depend entirely on one individual within the organisation.

A compliant record-keeping system should therefore satisfy four practical requirements:

Complete → accurate → retained → retrievable

Where one of these elements is missing, the organisation should investigate whether the issue affects an individual file or indicates a wider weakness in its sponsor compliance systems.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section F: Right to Work Checklist

 

Right to work compliance and sponsor licence compliance are closely connected, but they are not the same thing.

Employers are responsible for preventing illegal working and should conduct right to work checks in accordance with the applicable Home Office requirements. Sponsor licence holders also have additional responsibilities for monitoring sponsored workers and ensuring that their employment remains consistent with the conditions of their immigration permission and sponsorship.

An employer should therefore avoid assuming that a valid right to work check, by itself, demonstrates full sponsor compliance.

The internal review should test both whether the worker has the right to work in the UK and whether the organisation has followed the correct checking process.

 

1. Was a Compliant Right to Work Check Completed?

 

Employers should review whether an appropriate right to work check was completed for each worker.

Depending on the individual’s circumstances and the applicable checking regime, this may involve:

 

• a Home Office online right to work check;
• a prescribed manual document check where permitted;
• a check using an Identity Service Provider where the applicable requirements allow this; or
• verification through the Employer Checking Service where appropriate.

 

The organisation should be able to demonstrate which type of check was undertaken and why that method was appropriate for the individual concerned.

For online checks, employers should ensure that the check relates to the correct individual and that the information displayed by the Home Office confirms the person’s right to undertake the work being offered.

Where a manual check is permitted, the employer should ensure that the prescribed process was followed and the required evidence retained.

Where an Identity Service Provider is used, employers should understand the scope and limitations of the service and ensure the process satisfies the applicable Home Office requirements.

Where the individual’s status cannot be confirmed through the normal checking process and the circumstances permit use of the Employer Checking Service, the organisation should ensure that the appropriate verification is obtained and retained.

A checklist entry stating simply that “ID was checked” is not sufficient. The employer should be capable of establishing that the correct statutory process was followed.

 

2. Was the Right to Work Check Completed at the Correct Time?

 

Timing forms an important part of the right to work regime.

For employees, the employer should ensure that the required right to work check was completed before employment commenced where this is necessary to establish the statutory excuse.

The compliance review should compare:

 

• the employee’s employment start date;
• the date of the right to work check;
• the immigration permission relied upon;
• the date on which that permission became valid; and
• any subsequent checks undertaken by the organisation.

 

Where the records indicate that a check was completed after employment had already started, the organisation should not simply alter or recreate the record to suggest that it was completed earlier.

The actual position should be established and any compliance implications assessed.

The same principle applies where evidence is incomplete. Records should accurately reflect what happened rather than being retrospectively reconstructed in a misleading way.

 

3. Are Follow-Up Right to Work Checks Identified and Diarised?

 

Where an individual has time-limited immigration permission, a further right to work check may be required at the appropriate stage to maintain the employer’s statutory excuse.

Employers should therefore have a reliable system for identifying workers whose permission requires follow-up action.

The compliance review should establish:

 

• whether immigration expiry dates are recorded;
• whether workers requiring follow-up checks can be identified;
• whether reminders are generated sufficiently in advance;
• who is responsible for completing the follow-up check;
• what happens if updated immigration evidence is not available;
• whether the Employer Checking Service is used where appropriate;
• whether Positive Verification Notices and other relevant evidence are retained where applicable; and
• whether cases are escalated where continued permission to work cannot be established.

 

The system should not depend solely on an employee remembering to tell HR that their immigration permission is approaching expiry.

Nor should it depend entirely on one HR employee maintaining a private spreadsheet that nobody else can access.

A robust process should provide sufficient visibility and escalation to prevent an expiry date passing unnoticed.

 

4. Does the Worker’s Immigration Permission Allow the Work They Are Undertaking?

 

Right to work compliance is not limited to establishing that a person has some form of permission to work in the UK.

The employer should consider whether the individual’s immigration status permits the particular work they are undertaking.

For sponsored workers, this should be considered alongside the terms of their sponsorship.

The review should therefore compare:

 

• the worker’s current immigration permission;
• the sponsored role;
• the Certificate of Sponsorship;
• the worker’s actual duties;
• their working hours;
• their salary;
• their work location;
• any additional employment; and
• any restrictions or conditions applying to their immigration permission.

 

The employer should investigate any discrepancy between the worker’s immigration permission and their actual working arrangements.

For example, an individual may have a general right to work but still be subject to conditions affecting the work they can undertake. Sponsored workers are also subject to immigration conditions connected with their sponsored employment.

The relevant question is therefore not simply:

Does this person have a right to work?

It is also:

Does their immigration permission allow them to undertake the work they are actually doing?

 

5. Is Evidence of the Right to Work Check Retained Correctly?

 

The organisation should retain evidence of the right to work check in accordance with the applicable Home Office requirements.

The precise evidence will depend on the type of check undertaken.

The review should establish whether:

 

• evidence of the check has been retained;
• the record clearly identifies the individual checked;
• the date of the check can be established;
• the required online profile or output has been retained where applicable;
• manual document evidence has been copied and recorded correctly where that method is permitted;
• evidence from the Employer Checking Service is retained where relevant;
• the record is stored securely;
• the record can be retrieved promptly; and
• the organisation’s retention arrangements meet the applicable requirements.

 

The employer should be able to demonstrate the checking process from the retained evidence rather than relying on a note stating that a check was completed.

 

6. Do Current Right to Work Procedures Reflect the October 2026 Changes?

 

Employers should ensure that their right to work procedures reflect the current regime rather than relying on processes developed solely around traditional contracts of employment.

From 1 October 2026, right to work checking responsibilities were extended to specified categories of working arrangement beyond conventional employment, including certain individual subcontracting and other qualifying arrangements covered by the amended illegal working regime.

This development is particularly relevant to organisations that use mixed workforce models involving employees, individual contractors, subcontractors, casual workers or online matching arrangements.

Where these types of engagement are used, the organisation should establish whether the current right to work requirements apply to the particular arrangement and ensure that recruitment and onboarding procedures have been updated accordingly.

The compliance review should consider:

 

• whether the organisation uses workers outside conventional employment contracts;
• whether those arrangements fall within the current right to work checking regime;
• whether recruitment teams understand the expanded requirements;
• whether procurement or operational teams engage individuals outside the central HR process;
• whether appropriate right to work checks are incorporated into those engagement processes; and
• whether evidence of the checks is retained correctly.

 

This issue should be considered separately from the sponsor’s specific duties towards sponsored workers. The wider right to work regime and the sponsor licensing regime overlap, but each imposes its own requirements.

 

7. Test the Right to Work Process, Not Just the Files

 

A right to work audit should examine the process through which workers are recruited, checked and subsequently monitored.

The organisation should map the process from recruitment onwards:

Recruitment → right to work check → sponsorship → onboarding → immigration monitoring → follow-up check → escalation

At each stage, responsibility should be clear.

Questions to test include:

 

• Can a new starter begin work before HR confirms that the appropriate right to work check has been completed?
• Who prevents an individual from starting where evidence is outstanding?
• Who records immigration expiry dates?
• Who receives expiry reminders?
• Who completes follow-up checks?
• What happens where an employee says they have submitted an immigration application but cannot provide new evidence?
• Who decides whether the Employer Checking Service should be used?
• Who escalates cases where continued permission to work cannot be confirmed?
• Are sponsored workers identified within the process so that sponsor duties are considered alongside right to work requirements?
• Do non-standard worker engagement processes now capture individuals brought within the right to work regime from 1 October 2026?

 

The organisation should also consider whether its systems communicate with each other.

For example, the right to work team may record an updated immigration status while the sponsor licence team remains unaware of a change that has separate sponsorship implications.

Effective compliance therefore requires information to flow between the relevant functions.

 

8. Right to Work Compliance Test

 

At the end of the right to work review, the organisation should be able to answer yes to the following:

☐ An appropriate right to work check has been completed for each relevant worker.

☐ The correct checking method was used for the individual’s circumstances.

☐ Required checks were completed at the appropriate time.

☐ Evidence of each check has been retained correctly.

☐ Immigration expiry dates are recorded where follow-up action may be required.

☐ Follow-up checks are diarised and allocated to a responsible person.

☐ The Employer Checking Service is used where appropriate.

☐ Relevant Home Office verification evidence is retained.

☐ Sponsored workers’ immigration conditions are considered alongside their actual employment.

☐ The organisation checks whether the worker is permitted to undertake the work they are actually performing.

☐ Right to work information is communicated to the sponsor compliance function where relevant.

☐ Our procedures reflect the right to work regime applying from 1 October 2026.

☐ Non-standard working arrangements are assessed to determine whether right to work checks are required.

☐ Potential illegal working concerns are escalated promptly.

☐ Right to work records can be produced if the organisation is required to demonstrate its checking process.

The central distinction should remain clear:

Right to work compliance asks whether the individual can lawfully undertake the work.

Sponsor compliance additionally asks whether the organisation is meeting the obligations arising from sponsoring that individual.

For sponsored workers, both systems need to operate together.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section G: Sponsor Reporting Checklist

 

Sponsor licence holders are required to report specified changes and events to the Home Office. Effective compliance therefore depends on the organisation being able to identify potentially reportable events, assess what action is required and complete any necessary report within the applicable timeframe.

The principal operational risk is often not a lack of understanding that reporting duties exist. It is that the person responsible for the sponsor licence does not learn about an event until after it has happened.

A sponsored worker may change role, salary or location following a decision made by a line manager. HR may process a resignation. Payroll may implement a salary adjustment. The corporate team may complete a restructuring. Unless these events are connected to the sponsor compliance process, the organisation may miss a reporting obligation.

The reporting checklist should therefore test the complete internal information chain:

HR or management event → sponsor compliance referral → reporting requirement assessed → SMS action taken where required → evidence retained

 

1. Are Reportable Changes Affecting Sponsored Workers Being Identified?

 

Employers should have systems capable of identifying changes affecting sponsored workers that may require action under the sponsor guidance.

Depending on the circumstances and immigration route, potentially relevant events can include changes involving:

 

• a sponsored worker failing to start employment as expected;
• termination of sponsored employment;
• resignation;
• unauthorised absence;
• certain periods of absence;
• changes to salary, including mandatory reporting of non-absence-related reductions;
• changes to working hours;
• changes to job title;
• changes to duties or responsibilities;
• changes to work location;
• changes to the nature of the sponsored role;
• changes to employment circumstances;
• information suggesting that sponsorship has ceased or may need to cease; and
• other events specified by the applicable sponsor guidance.

 

The checklist should not be interpreted as meaning that every employment change automatically requires an SMS report.

The employer should instead have a process through which relevant events are referred for assessment against the current sponsor rules.

For example, a line manager should not be expected to determine the immigration consequences of a promotion. The manager should, however, know that a proposed change affecting a sponsored worker needs to be referred to the appropriate HR or immigration compliance function before or when the change takes effect.

This creates an important distinction between:

identifying the event

and

determining the sponsor action required.

Operational managers can identify the event. The appropriate sponsor compliance personnel can then determine whether an SMS report, new Certificate of Sponsorship, immigration application or other action is required.

 

2. Are Organisational Changes Being Identified?

 

Sponsor reporting duties are not limited to events affecting individual sponsored workers.

Changes affecting the sponsor organisation itself can also require reporting or other action.

The compliance review should therefore consider whether the sponsor function is informed about changes involving matters such as:

 

• business addresses;
• operating locations;
• branches;
• key personnel;
• contact information;
• business activities;
• organisational structure;
• direct ownership;
• mergers;
• takeovers;
• de-mergers;
• TUPE transfers;
• restructuring;
• insolvency events; and
• other material corporate changes.

 

Corporate transactions require particular care because a sponsor licence is not transferable.

A change in direct ownership, merger, takeover, de-merger or transfer of sponsored workers can therefore have consequences extending beyond simply updating information on the existing sponsor licence.

Depending on the transaction, the existing sponsor, acquiring organisation or another relevant entity may need to make reports, take action in relation to sponsored workers or make a new sponsor licence application.

The organisation should therefore avoid completing a corporate transaction and only afterwards asking whether there were sponsor licence implications.

Sponsor compliance should form part of the transaction planning process.

A practical internal trigger is:

Proposed corporate change → sponsor licence impact assessment → required reports/applications identified → transaction implemented → sponsorship position reconciled

 

3. Are Sponsor Reporting Deadlines Actively Monitored?

 

Identifying a reportable event is only part of the sponsor’s obligation. Where a report is required, it must also be made within the applicable deadline.

For many specified changes affecting sponsored workers, the current sponsor guidance requires reporting through the SMS within 10 working days of the relevant event.

For ordinary organisational changes, the general 20-working-day period usually runs from when the sponsor becomes aware of the change. For mergers, takeovers, direct ownership changes and de-mergers, the 20-working-day period generally runs from when the change takes place.

Employers should not treat these periods as universal rules for every sponsor event. The precise requirement should be checked against the current Home Office guidance applying to the particular change and sponsorship route.

The internal compliance system should nevertheless be designed to identify relevant events quickly enough for the organisation to assess and meet the applicable deadline.

The review should establish:

 

• who determines whether an event is reportable;
• who calculates the relevant deadline;
• where reporting deadlines are recorded;
• whether reminders and escalation mechanisms exist;
• who is responsible for making the SMS report;
• what happens if the responsible Level 1 User is absent;
• whether there is sufficient time to obtain necessary information before the deadline;
• how urgent corporate changes are handled; and
• how late or potentially missed reports are escalated.

 

A process that depends on an individual remembering a deadline without any central tracking creates avoidable compliance risk.

Employers should also consider the point at which the internal reporting clock effectively begins. If HR becomes aware of an event but does not refer it to the sponsor team for several days, the organisation may already have lost valuable time before the immigration assessment starts.

The internal objective should therefore be faster than the Home Office deadline.

Relevant events should be escalated as soon as they are identified.

 

4. Is There an Audit Trail of Sponsor Reports?

 

Where a report has been made, the organisation should retain sufficient evidence to demonstrate what action was taken.

The compliance review should consider whether the sponsor can establish:

 

• what event occurred;
• when the organisation became aware of it;
• when the reporting requirement was assessed;
• what decision was made;
• when the SMS report was submitted;
• what information was provided;
• who submitted the report;
• whether supporting evidence was required or supplied;
• whether any subsequent Home Office correspondence was received; and
• whether further action was completed.

 

The organisation should not have to rely solely on the memory of the Level 1 User who made the report.

A clear audit trail can be particularly important where the relevant employee later leaves the business or where the Home Office examines the organisation’s historic compliance activity.

Employers should therefore consider maintaining an internal sponsor reporting record or compliance log alongside the information recorded within the SMS.

This can provide a chronological record of relevant events, decisions and actions.

 

5. Testing the Internal Reporting Chain

 

An effective sponsor reporting audit should test how information travels through the organisation.

Select recent employment and organisational changes and trace what happened.

Examples could include:

 

• a sponsored worker receiving a promotion;
• a sponsored worker changing salary;
• a sponsored worker moving to another location;
• a worker resigning;
• a period of extended absence;
• a change in working arrangements;
• a change of business address;
• a change of Authorising Officer or other key personnel;
• an acquisition or disposal; or
• a restructuring affecting sponsored workers.

 

For each event, ask:

Who knew?

Who within the organisation first became aware of the change?

Who referred it?

Was the event communicated to the person responsible for sponsor compliance?

Who assessed it?

Did somebody determine whether the event had sponsor or immigration implications?

Was action required?

Was an SMS report, new Certificate of Sponsorship, immigration application or other action necessary?

Was the deadline met?

Where a report or application was required, was it completed within the applicable timeframe?

Can the organisation prove it?

Is there a record showing what happened and what action was taken?

This approach can expose weaknesses that are not visible from reading the organisation’s sponsor compliance policy.

For example:

Manager approves role change → HR updates HR system → payroll updates salary → sponsor team is not informed

In this situation, the HR and payroll processes may both have operated correctly while the sponsor reporting process failed.

The compliance solution is therefore not simply additional immigration training for the Level 1 User. The organisation needs a control connecting relevant HR and management events with immigration compliance.

 

6. Sponsor Reporting Compliance Test

 

At the end of the reporting review, the organisation should be able to answer yes to the following:

☐ Relevant changes affecting sponsored workers can be identified.

☐ Managers know which types of changes should be referred for sponsor compliance assessment.

☐ HR processes flag relevant changes involving sponsored workers.

☐ Payroll changes affecting sponsored workers can be referred for immigration review where necessary.

☐ Resignations and terminations reach the sponsor compliance function promptly.

☐ Absence information is escalated where it may have sponsor implications.

☐ Organisational changes are considered for sponsor licence implications.

☐ Corporate transactions trigger a sponsor licence impact assessment.

☐ We understand that a sponsor licence cannot simply be transferred between legal entities.

☐ The person responsible for compliance knows how to determine whether an event is reportable.

☐ Reporting deadlines are recorded and actively monitored.

☐ We recognise that many worker-related reports are subject to a 10-working-day deadline.

☐ We recognise that specified corporate changes can engage a 20-working-day reporting or application period running from the change taking place.

☐ The precise rule is checked for the event concerned rather than relying on a general deadline.

☐ There is sufficient SMS coverage if the usual Level 1 User is unavailable.

☐ Reports made through the SMS are documented.

☐ We retain an audit trail of relevant events, decisions and sponsor actions.

☐ Potentially missed or late reports are escalated and investigated rather than ignored.

The core reporting control can be summarised as:

Event identified → compliance team informed → requirement assessed → deadline established → action completed → evidence retained

Where the organisation cannot demonstrate each stage of this process, it should consider whether its reporting system is sufficiently robust to meet its sponsor duties consistently.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section H: Certificate of Sponsorship Checklist

 

Certificates of Sponsorship are central to the sponsorship process. They are also a significant compliance control because the information entered when a CoS is assigned forms part of the basis on which the worker applies for immigration permission.

Employers should therefore treat CoS assignment as a controlled immigration process rather than a routine administrative task.

The organisation should be able to demonstrate why a Certificate of Sponsorship was assigned, who approved it, what information was checked and how the sponsored role corresponds with the employment that subsequently took place.

A useful compliance chain is:

Business need → genuine vacancy → recruitment → sponsorship assessment → CoS assignment → immigration permission → employment → ongoing monitoring

The internal review should test whether appropriate controls operate throughout that chain.

 

1. Are CoS Requests and Assignments Properly Controlled?

 

Employers should have a defined process for requesting, approving and assigning Certificates of Sponsorship.

The compliance review should establish:

 

• who can request sponsorship for a worker;
• who assesses whether sponsorship is appropriate;
• who verifies the proposed role and employment terms;
• who approves the use of a Certificate of Sponsorship;
• who is authorised to assign the CoS through the SMS;
• whether appropriate checks take place before assignment;
• whether supporting information is retained;
• whether CoS activity is periodically reviewed; and
• whether responsibility is sufficiently separated to provide effective oversight where appropriate.

 

The organisation should avoid a process in which a Certificate of Sponsorship can be assigned simply because a manager asks HR to sponsor a particular individual.

The request should first be assessed against the relevant immigration route and sponsor requirements.

For larger organisations, it may be appropriate to operate an internal approval process under which the business provides the information needed for the immigration team or authorised Level 1 User to assess the proposed sponsorship.

Smaller organisations may have fewer people involved, but the same principle applies: the decision to sponsor should be based on verified information rather than assumptions.

SMS access should also remain controlled. Only appropriately authorised users should carry out CoS functions through the Sponsor Management System.

 

2. Is the Information Checked Before a CoS Is Assigned?

 

Information entered on a Certificate of Sponsorship should be checked carefully before assignment.

The organisation should have a process for verifying relevant information, which can include:

 

• the worker’s identity;
• the applicable immigration route;
• job title;
• occupation code;
• job description and substantive duties;
• salary;
• working hours;
• work location;
• employment start and end dates where applicable;
• the nature of the employment relationship;
• whether the role meets the applicable sponsorship requirements;
• whether the worker meets relevant route requirements;
• whether any required qualifications or professional registration have been considered;
• whether relevant salary requirements are satisfied;
• whether the Immigration Skills Charge applies where relevant; and
• any other information required for the particular route or CoS.

 

The information should be checked against reliable internal evidence rather than copied from an unverified request.

For example, salary information should correspond with the approved employment package. Job duties should reflect the actual position being offered. The work location should reflect the expected working arrangements.

Where information changes between the initial sponsorship request and assignment of the CoS, the final information should be checked again.

A useful internal control is for the organisation to require confirmation that the material CoS information has been verified before the Level 1 User assigns the certificate.

 

3. Can the Organisation Evidence the Genuine Role?

 

Sponsors should be able to demonstrate that the role for which sponsorship is being provided genuinely exists and satisfies the applicable sponsorship requirements.

The compliance review should therefore consider whether the organisation can explain:

 

• why the role exists;
• where the role sits within the organisation;
• what duties the worker performs;
• who the worker reports to;
• how the role relates to the sponsor’s business activities;
• why the stated skill level and occupation classification are appropriate;
• how the salary was determined;
• how the worker was recruited or identified;
• where the work is undertaken; and
• whether the role continues to exist in substantially the form described for sponsorship purposes.

 

The Home Office can examine whether a sponsored role is genuine and whether the worker’s actual role corresponds with the role described for sponsorship purposes. An unpermitted mismatch between the actual role and the occupation code or job description on the Certificate of Sponsorship can amount to a mandatory ground for revocation.

Employers should therefore avoid relying solely on a job description created for the immigration process.

The role should be supported by the operational reality of the organisation.

Relevant evidence may include organisational structures, recruitment records, employment documentation, payroll information, reporting lines, work outputs and information from the worker’s manager, depending on the circumstances.

The objective is not to generate unnecessary documentation. It is to ensure that the organisation can demonstrate that the sponsored position is a genuine role within the business and that the worker is actually undertaking that role.

Particular attention should be given where:

 

• the role appears unusual for the organisation;
• the business is small and the sponsored role is highly specialised;
• the job description is generic or unclear;
• the worker’s duties have changed significantly;
• the role spans several different functions;
• the employee has moved within the organisation;
• the work is carried out principally at another location;
• the worker performs duties for another group company or third party; or
• the actual work appears materially different from the sponsored role.

 

These circumstances do not necessarily indicate non-compliance, but they can justify closer review.

 

4. Are Certificates of Sponsorship Reconciled Against the SMS and HR Records?

 

CoS compliance should continue after assignment.

The employer should periodically reconcile Certificates of Sponsorship with the Sponsor Management System and its internal HR records.

The review should consider:

 

• which Certificates of Sponsorship have been assigned;
• which workers subsequently obtained immigration permission;
• which sponsored workers commenced employment;
• whether any workers failed to start;
• whether assigned certificates were ultimately unused;
• whether the employment began on the anticipated basis;
• whether the sponsored salary corresponds with payroll;
• whether the job duties correspond with the actual role;
• whether the recorded work location remains accurate;
• whether subsequent changes have been identified and assessed; and
• whether any required sponsor reports have been made.

 

This reconciliation can identify cases where the sponsorship process was completed correctly at the outset but the employment subsequently developed in a different direction.

For example:

CoS salary → employment contract → payroll

should tell a consistent story.

Likewise:

CoS job description → HR job description → manager account → actual duties

should be capable of reconciliation.

Material discrepancies should be investigated rather than treated as routine differences between systems.

 

5. Controlling CoS Allocation and Use

 

Employers should maintain oversight of their use of Certificates of Sponsorship.

The compliance review should consider whether:

 

• CoS requests are linked to genuine recruitment or workforce requirements;
• assignment is restricted to authorised SMS users;
• internal approval is obtained before assignment;
• the organisation understands the type of CoS required for the worker and route;
• requested allocations are based on genuine anticipated sponsorship needs;
• CoS activity is monitored for unusual or unexpected patterns;
• unused or unnecessary sponsorship activity is investigated where appropriate;
• fees and charges connected with sponsorship are handled correctly; and
• the organisation retains sufficient evidence to explain its sponsorship decisions.

 

The purpose of an internal control process is not to make sponsorship unnecessarily bureaucratic. It is to prevent inaccurate, inappropriate or inadequately evidenced CoS assignments.

Employers should also ensure that staff understand that a Certificate of Sponsorship is not a paper certificate or general permission that can be transferred between workers. It is an electronic sponsorship record assigned in relation to a particular worker and proposed employment.

 

6. Check What Happens After Assignment

 

One of the most important compliance controls is what happens after the Certificate of Sponsorship has been assigned.

The immigration team should not necessarily treat the case as complete once the CoS has been issued.

The organisation should be capable of identifying whether:

 

• the worker obtained the required immigration permission;
• the worker completed the appropriate right to work process;
• the worker started employment;
• the worker started in the expected role;
• the employment terms correspond with the sponsored arrangements;
• the worker is being paid the expected salary;
• the worker is working at the expected location or locations;
• relevant HR monitoring has begun;
• immigration expiry information has been recorded; and
• subsequent changes are referred for sponsor compliance assessment.

 

This closes the gap between immigration sponsorship and operational employment.

A useful control sequence is:

CoS assigned → immigration outcome confirmed → right to work completed → employment commenced → HR records activated → payroll reconciled → ongoing sponsor monitoring begins

Without this connection, an organisation can have a strong CoS assignment process but weak ongoing sponsor compliance.

 

7. Certificate of Sponsorship Compliance Test

 

At the end of the CoS review, the organisation should be able to answer yes to the following:

☐ CoS requests follow a defined internal process.

☐ Responsibility for approving sponsorship is clear.

☐ Only appropriately authorised SMS users assign Certificates of Sponsorship.

☐ Material CoS information is checked before assignment.

☐ The immigration route and sponsorship requirements are assessed.

☐ Job title, duties and occupation classification have been reviewed.

☐ Salary and working hours have been verified.

☐ Work location and working arrangements have been considered.

☐ The organisation can demonstrate that the sponsored role genuinely exists.

☐ Recruitment evidence is retained where required.

☐ The business can explain why the worker was sponsored.

☐ CoS assignments are reconciled against the SMS and HR records.

☐ Immigration outcomes are confirmed after assignment.

☐ The worker’s right to work is checked before employment in accordance with the applicable requirements.

☐ The worker’s actual role corresponds with the sponsored role.

☐ Payroll corresponds with the sponsored remuneration arrangements and non-absence-related salary reductions have been reported where required.

☐ Subsequent employment changes are referred for immigration assessment.

☐ CoS allocation and usage are monitored.

☐ The organisation retains an audit trail explaining relevant sponsorship decisions.

The full sponsorship chain should therefore be capable of being evidenced:

Business need → genuine vacancy → recruitment → sponsorship assessment → CoS assignment → immigration permission → right to work → employment → payroll → ongoing monitoring

If the organisation cannot reconstruct this chain for a sponsored worker, it should identify where the evidence or process has broken down and determine whether corrective action is required.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section I: HR Systems Checklist

 

Effective sponsor licence compliance depends heavily on the organisation’s HR systems.

The Home Office expects sponsors to have systems capable of monitoring sponsored workers and identifying events that may affect their sponsorship. This means sponsor compliance cannot operate entirely separately from ordinary HR administration.

Recruitment, onboarding, absence management, payroll, promotions, changes to duties, changes to work location and termination processes can all generate information with potential immigration implications.

The compliance review should therefore test whether the organisation’s HR systems are capable of identifying relevant events and ensuring that information reaches the people responsible for sponsor compliance.

The essential relationship is:

HR event → immigration consequence → sponsor reporting decision → action → evidence

 

1. Can You Monitor Immigration Permission Expiry Dates?

 

The organisation should have a reliable system for recording and monitoring the immigration permission of workers where ongoing monitoring is required.

The review should establish:

 

• where immigration expiry dates are recorded;
• whether the information is accurate;
• who is responsible for maintaining it;
• whether reminders are generated before relevant expiry dates;
• how far in advance the organisation begins follow-up action;
• who contacts the worker;
• who carries out any required follow-up right to work check;
• what happens where the worker has made an outstanding immigration application;
• when the Employer Checking Service is used where appropriate;
• how cases are escalated where continued permission cannot be established; and
• whether evidence of subsequent checks is retained.

 

The system should provide sufficient warning to allow the organisation to investigate the worker’s position before their existing permission expires.

Employers should avoid relying solely on calendar reminders held by one individual or on the sponsored worker remembering to contact HR.

A practical test is to generate a report showing workers whose immigration permission expires within a defined future period and confirm that the organisation can identify what action is required in each case.

If the HR system cannot produce this information, the employer should consider whether its monitoring arrangements are sufficiently robust.

 

2. Can You Monitor Sponsored Worker Attendance and Absence?

 

Sponsors should have systems capable of monitoring sponsored workers’ attendance and identifying relevant absence issues.

The compliance review should establish how the organisation records:

 

• normal attendance;
• annual leave;
• sickness absence;
• family-related leave;
• unpaid leave;
• other authorised absence;
• unauthorised absence;
• extended periods away from work; and
• failure to attend work when expected.

 

The organisation should then test what happens when an absence becomes potentially relevant to sponsor compliance.

For example, a line manager may record an employee as absent within a departmental system. That information needs to reach the appropriate HR or sponsor compliance personnel where the circumstances require immigration consideration.

The compliance process should therefore answer:

Absence recorded → threshold or concern identified → HR informed → sponsor implications assessed → action taken where required

The organisation should also be able to distinguish between ordinary authorised absence and circumstances requiring further assessment under the sponsor guidance, including cumulative unpaid or reduced-pay absence against the applicable four-week threshold.

The objective is not to treat every day of absence as an immigration event. It is to ensure that relevant absences do not remain invisible to the sponsor compliance function.

 

3. Can You Track Changes to Sponsored Employment?

 

HR systems should enable the organisation to identify material changes affecting sponsored workers.

This can include changes to:

 

• job title;
• duties;
• seniority;
• department;
• reporting line;
• salary;
• working hours;
• work location;
• working arrangements;
• employment status; and
• termination date.

 

Employers should consider how these changes are approved within the organisation.

If a manager can change a sponsored worker’s role without involving HR, the immigration implications may never be considered.

Likewise, if payroll can implement a salary change without the sponsor compliance function being informed, a potentially relevant event may be missed.

A strong process should therefore contain sponsor compliance triggers within ordinary HR approval procedures.

For example:

Proposed promotion → sponsored worker identified → immigration review → approval/action → HR and payroll implementation

This is preferable to discovering the change during a later sponsor audit.

 

4. Can HR Identify Events That May Require an SMS Report?

 

HR personnel do not necessarily need to determine the legal reporting requirement themselves, but they should be capable of recognising events that require referral to the sponsor compliance function.

Relevant triggers can include:

 

• a sponsored worker not starting employment;
• resignation;
• dismissal or other termination;
• significant absence;
• unauthorised absence;
• salary changes;
• changes in hours;
• promotion;
• changes to duties;
• changes to work location;
• changes to working arrangements;
• changes to immigration status;
• potential right to work issues; and
• other changes potentially affecting sponsorship.

 

The organisation should define an escalation process so that HR staff know where to send the information.

The process should operate quickly enough to allow any applicable Home Office deadline to be met.

For many specified worker-related events, the sponsor reporting deadline is 10 working days. HR procedures should therefore ensure relevant information reaches the sponsor compliance function promptly rather than waiting for periodic reviews or monthly administration.

The safest operational principle is:

Refer first → assess promptly → report where required

This avoids requiring every HR employee to become an immigration specialist while still ensuring potentially relevant events are captured.

 

5. Are Immigration Responsibilities Integrated Into Normal HR Processes?

 

Sponsor compliance is generally stronger where immigration controls are incorporated into ordinary HR processes rather than operated as a separate administrative system.

Employers should review whether sponsorship considerations are built into processes for:

 

• recruitment;
• offers of employment;
• onboarding;
• right to work checking;
• probation;
• absence management;
• salary reviews;
• promotions;
• role changes;
• changes to working hours;
• changes to work location;
• remote and hybrid working arrangements;
• international assignments where relevant;
• family-related and unpaid leave;
• disciplinary processes where relevant;
• resignations;
• dismissals;
• redundancies;
• offboarding; and
• corporate restructuring.

 

For each process, the organisation should ask:

Could this process generate an event with immigration or sponsor licence implications?

If the answer is yes, there should be an appropriate referral or compliance control.

For example, an ordinary employee promotion form could include a field identifying whether the employee is sponsored. If they are, the proposed change can be referred for immigration assessment before implementation.

Similarly, an offboarding process can automatically alert the sponsor team when a sponsored worker’s employment is ending.

These controls reduce reliance on individual employees remembering immigration rules.

 

6. Are Relevant Staff Trained in Sponsor Compliance?

 

Sponsor compliance responsibilities can extend beyond the individuals formally named on the sponsor licence.

Relevant staff should understand the aspects of the sponsorship system that affect their role.

Depending on the organisation, training may be appropriate for:

 

• the Authorising Officer;
• Level 1 Users;
• any remaining Level 2 Users during the 2026/27 phase-out period;
• HR personnel;
• recruitment teams;
• payroll personnel;
• line managers;
• business managers;
• those involved in corporate transactions; and
• others whose decisions can affect sponsored workers.

 

The content of the training should reflect the individual’s responsibilities.

A line manager does not necessarily need detailed training on how to make an SMS report. They should, however, understand that certain changes affecting a sponsored worker need to be referred to HR or the sponsor compliance team.

A Level 1 User requires more detailed knowledge of sponsor processes, SMS activity and reporting requirements.

Training should also be refreshed where:

 

• Home Office requirements change;
• the organisation’s procedures change;
• new personnel take on sponsor responsibilities;
• an internal audit identifies weaknesses;
• the organisation undergoes significant restructuring; or
• compliance problems indicate that staff do not understand the existing process.

 

Training records can also help the organisation demonstrate how it communicates sponsor compliance responsibilities internally.

 

7. Connecting HR Events With Immigration Consequences

 

One of the most useful exercises in a sponsor compliance review is to map common HR events against the organisation’s immigration process.

For example:

Salary review → sponsored worker identified → new salary assessed → sponsor action considered → payroll implemented → records updated

Promotion → sponsored worker identified → new duties assessed → occupation and sponsorship implications considered → required action completed → promotion implemented

Change of location → sponsored worker identified → immigration implications assessed → SMS action completed where required → HR records updated

Resignation → HR informed → sponsored status identified → sponsor team notified → required SMS report completed → records retained

Immigration permission approaching expiry → reminder generated → worker contacted → new status checked → follow-up right to work action completed → records updated

The precise immigration outcome will depend on the circumstances. The important compliance control is that the event reaches the appropriate decision-maker.

 

8. Is Sponsor Compliance Dependent on One Person?

 

Organisations should consider whether their sponsor licence arrangements are overly dependent on a single employee.

This can occur where one HR manager:

 

• holds the principal SMS access;
• maintains the sponsored worker spreadsheet;
• records immigration expiry dates;
• makes all Home Office reports;
• retains the relevant documents;
• understands the organisation’s sponsorship history; and
• is the only person familiar with the compliance procedures.

 

This creates a significant continuity risk.

If that individual is absent, leaves the organisation or loses SMS access, the employer may struggle to meet reporting deadlines or explain its sponsorship arrangements.

This risk is particularly relevant under the current SMS account regime. Sponsors should ensure that required users remain active and that the organisation maintains at least one active and eligible Level 1 User.

SMS users should also ensure that their contact information supports the current multi-factor authentication requirements.

The organisation should therefore have appropriate cover arrangements, shared organisational records and documented procedures that allow sponsor compliance activity to continue when key personnel are unavailable.

 

9. Test Whether the HR System Works in Practice

 

The compliance review should test actual transactions rather than relying only on policy documents.

Select examples from the previous months, such as:

 

• a salary increase;
• a promotion;
• a change of duties;
• a change of work location;
• an extended absence;
• a resignation;
• a new sponsored worker;
• an immigration extension; or
• a corporate change affecting employees.

 

Trace each event through the organisation.

Ask:

Was the sponsored worker identified?

Did the information reach the sponsor compliance function?

Was the immigration position assessed?

Was any required action completed within the applicable timeframe?

Can the organisation evidence what happened?

This form of testing can reveal whether the organisation’s procedures genuinely operate in practice.

A policy stating that HR must notify the Level 1 User of salary changes provides limited protection if actual salary changes are processed without any notification.

 

10. HR Systems Compliance Test

 

At the end of the HR systems review, the organisation should be able to answer yes to the following:

☐ Immigration expiry dates are recorded and monitored where required.

☐ Follow-up right to work activity is diarised and allocated.

☐ Sponsored worker attendance and absence can be monitored.

☐ Relevant absence issues are escalated for immigration assessment, including cumulative unpaid or reduced-pay absence against the applicable four-week threshold.

☐ Changes to sponsored roles can be identified.

☐ Salary and working-hours changes are referred where necessary, including mandatory SMS reporting of non-absence-related salary reductions.

☐ Promotions involving sponsored workers trigger immigration consideration.

☐ Changes to work location and working arrangements can be identified.

☐ HR personnel recognise events that may require sponsor action.

☐ Relevant events reach the sponsor compliance function promptly.

☐ Recruitment procedures incorporate sponsorship and right to work controls.

☐ Onboarding procedures connect immigration, HR and payroll information.

☐ Offboarding procedures identify sponsored workers and trigger sponsor review.

☐ Relevant staff receive sponsor compliance training appropriate to their responsibilities.

☐ Training is refreshed where requirements or procedures change.

☐ Sponsor compliance does not depend entirely on one individual.

☐ We maintain sufficient active Level 1 User coverage.

☐ SMS user details support current multi-factor authentication requirements.

☐ Actual HR events have been tested to confirm that our procedures operate in practice.

The central question is whether the organisation has successfully connected ordinary workforce management with immigration compliance.

The system should operate as:

HR event → sponsored worker identified → immigration implications assessed → sponsor action completed → evidence retained

Where that connection is missing, even otherwise effective HR processes can create sponsor licence compliance risk.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section J: Organisational Change Checklist

 

Changes to the structure, ownership or operation of a business can have significant sponsor licence consequences.

Corporate changes are particularly important because the legal entity holding the sponsor licence matters. A sponsor licence is not transferable. A transaction that appears commercially straightforward may therefore require Home Office reporting, action in relation to sponsored workers, a new sponsor licence application or a combination of these steps.

Employers should ensure that sponsor compliance is considered as part of corporate planning rather than after a transaction has completed.

The appropriate internal process is:

Business change → sponsor impact assessment → required action → implementation → reconciliation

 

1. Has the Business Changed Since the Sponsor Licence Was Granted?

 

The organisation should review whether there have been material changes since the sponsor licence was granted or since its last detailed compliance review.

Relevant changes can include:

 

• changes in direct ownership;
• mergers or acquisitions;
• takeovers;
• de-mergers;
• TUPE transfers;
• internal restructuring;
• changes within a corporate group;
• the acquisition or disposal of business activities;
• changes to the legal entity employing sponsored workers;
• changes to registered or principal addresses;
• new or closed branches;
• changes to operating locations;
• changes in the nature of the organisation’s business;
• significant expansion or contraction;
• insolvency or related events;
• changes to key personnel; and
• other changes affecting the information associated with the sponsor licence.

 

The review should not be limited to changes that senior management considers significant.

An event that appears relatively routine from a corporate, finance or operational perspective can still have sponsor licence implications.

The organisation should therefore compare its current legal and operational structure with the position reflected in its sponsorship records.

 

2. Have Organisational Changes Been Assessed for Sponsor Licence Implications?

 

Where a change has occurred or is proposed, the organisation should determine its sponsor licence implications.

The assessment should consider questions such as:

 

• Which legal entity currently holds the sponsor licence?
• Will that legal entity continue to exist?
• Has there been or will there be a change in direct ownership?
• Will sponsored workers remain employed by the same legal entity?
• Will sponsored workers transfer to another entity?
• Does the transaction involve TUPE?
• Will business activities move between group companies?
• Will sponsored workers change work location?
• Will their roles, duties or reporting structures change?
• Will existing key personnel remain appropriate?
• Does information held by the Home Office need to be updated?
• Is an SMS report required?
• Is a new sponsor licence application required?
• Is action required in relation to individual sponsored workers?
• Are any reporting or application deadlines engaged?

 

The analysis should take place sufficiently early for any required action to be incorporated into the transaction timetable.

This is particularly important because a sponsor licence cannot simply be transferred from one legal entity to another.

The fact that the business continues to trade under the same name, from the same premises and with the same employees does not necessarily mean that the sponsor licence position remains unchanged if the underlying legal ownership or employing entity has changed.

 

3. Were Required Reports, Applications or Other Actions Completed?

 

Where a corporate or organisational change has sponsor licence implications, the employer should verify that the required action was actually completed.

Depending on the circumstances, this can involve:

 

• reporting changes through the Sponsor Management System;
• updating sponsor licence information;
• making a new sponsor licence application;
• taking action in relation to transferred sponsored workers;
• updating key personnel;
• updating operating or work locations;
• reviewing Certificates of Sponsorship;
• considering whether workers require immigration action;
• updating right to work and HR records; and
• retaining evidence of the transaction and the sponsor action taken.

 

Certain corporate changes can engage a 20-working-day period for relevant reporting or application action. For mergers, takeovers, direct ownership changes and de-mergers, the period generally runs from when the change takes place.

The precise requirement depends on the nature of the transaction. Employers should therefore identify the applicable rule rather than assuming that every corporate change is governed by the same process or deadline.

The compliance review should establish:

 

• when the relevant event occurred;
• when the sponsor compliance function became aware of it;
• what immigration assessment was undertaken;
• what action was identified as necessary;
• when that action was completed;
• whether the applicable deadline was met; and
• whether evidence of the action has been retained.

 

If a historic transaction was not assessed at the time, the organisation should establish the current position rather than assuming that no action is necessary because the transaction has already completed.

 

4. Have Sponsored Workers Been Affected by the Change?

 

A corporate transaction can affect the sponsor licence itself, individual sponsored workers or both.

The employer should therefore review the position of each sponsored worker affected by the change.

Consider whether there have been changes to:

 

• the employing legal entity;
• the worker’s role;
• job title;
• duties and responsibilities;
• salary;
• working hours;
• work location;
• reporting lines;
• department or business unit;
• terms and conditions;
• the organisation for which the worker performs their duties; and
• other aspects of the sponsored employment.

 

The organisation should then reconcile those changes with the worker’s sponsorship position.

A useful worker-level review is:

Pre-transaction employment → transaction → post-transaction employment → sponsor implications → action completed

This can help identify cases where the corporate sponsor position was addressed but individual worker consequences were overlooked.

 

5. Mergers and Acquisitions

 

Mergers and acquisitions should trigger sponsor licence due diligence at an early stage.

The parties should establish which entities hold sponsor licences, which entities employ sponsored workers and how the proposed transaction will affect those relationships.

Relevant questions can include:

 

• Does the target company hold a sponsor licence?
• Does the acquiring company hold a sponsor licence?
• Which entity currently employs the sponsored workers?
• Will that employing entity remain in existence?
• Will direct ownership change?
• Will sponsored workers transfer?
• Will a new sponsor licence be required?
• What reports need to be made?
• What deadlines apply?
• Will roles, salaries or work locations change after completion?
• Are existing sponsor records sufficiently complete to support the post-transaction arrangements?

 

Immigration due diligence can also identify historic sponsor compliance issues that the acquiring organisation may need to understand before completion.

These can include incomplete worker records, outdated SMS information, unresolved reporting issues or weaknesses in the target organisation’s sponsor compliance systems.

 

6. TUPE Transfers

 

TUPE transfers involving sponsored workers require specific immigration consideration.

Employment law treatment of the transfer does not, by itself, determine the sponsor licence position.

The organisations involved should establish:

 

• which sponsored workers are transferring;
• which entity sponsored them before the transfer;
• which entity will employ them afterwards;
• whether the receiving organisation holds an appropriate sponsor licence;
• what sponsor reporting or application action is required;
• whether the sponsored roles remain materially the same;
• whether salaries and working arrangements are changing;
• whether worker records will transfer appropriately; and
• what deadlines apply.

 

Responsibility for the immigration work should be allocated as part of the transfer planning.

Employers should not assume that the automatic transfer principles applying for employment purposes mean that sponsorship automatically transfers with the employee.

The sponsor licence position has to be considered separately under the applicable Home Office rules.

 

7. Restructuring Within a Corporate Group

 

Internal group reorganisations can also create sponsor compliance issues.

Businesses sometimes assume that moving an employee between companies within the same corporate group has little significance because ultimate ownership remains unchanged.

For sponsorship purposes, the identity of the licensed legal entity and the worker’s employing entity remain important.

The review should therefore consider whether:

 

• workers have moved between group companies;
• employment contracts have changed entity;
• payroll has moved to another entity;
• reporting lines have changed;
• business functions have transferred;
• the worker is performing duties for another group company;
• work locations have changed; and
• the sponsor licence structure remains appropriate.

 

Where the organisation operates multiple sponsor licences across a group, it should also ensure that sponsored workers are associated with the correct licensed entity and that responsibilities between group companies are understood.

 

8. Changes of Address and Operating Locations

 

Changes to premises and operating locations should be included in the sponsor compliance process.

The organisation should review whether:

 

• registered or principal business addresses have changed;
• new offices or sites have opened;
• existing sites have closed;
• sponsored workers have moved location;
• remote or hybrid working arrangements have changed materially;
• sponsored workers are based at client or third-party sites; and
• the information held by the Home Office remains accurate.

 

Where sponsored workers carry out duties at third-party premises, employers should also consider their ability to meet sponsor duties and respond to Home Office compliance activity in relation to those arrangements.

Home Office compliance activity can extend to premises or sites where sponsored workers undertake their duties, including relevant third-party locations. Sponsors should therefore ensure that their operational arrangements do not prevent appropriate Home Office access or cooperation where required.

 

9. Build Sponsor Compliance Into Corporate Change Procedures

 

The strongest control is to incorporate sponsor licence review into the organisation’s standard corporate change process.

For example, transactions involving ownership, restructuring, TUPE, changes of employing entity or significant changes to operating locations can include a mandatory immigration compliance workstream.

The process could operate as:

Transaction proposed → licensed entities identified → sponsored workers identified → sponsor implications assessed → deadlines recorded → required actions completed → transaction closes → post-completion audit

This allows immigration issues to be identified while there is still time to address them properly.

The sponsor compliance function should also have sufficient visibility of planned transactions. A process will not work if the immigration team only learns about a corporate change after completion.

 

10. Post-Change Reconciliation

 

Once an organisational change has been implemented, employers should conduct a post-change reconciliation.

The review should compare:

 

• the current legal structure;
• sponsor licence information;
• SMS records;
• key personnel;
• sponsored worker records;
• employment contracts;
• payroll arrangements;
• work locations;
• reporting lines;
• Certificates of Sponsorship; and
• the actual working arrangements of affected workers.

 

The purpose is to confirm that the sponsor position anticipated during transaction planning corresponds with what actually happened.

This is important because transactions can change during implementation. Employees expected to remain with one entity may transfer to another, locations may change or post-completion restructuring may alter roles.

The immigration review should therefore not necessarily end when the transaction completes.

 

11. Organisational Change Compliance Test

 

At the end of the organisational change review, the organisation should be able to answer yes to the following:

☐ We know whether the business has undergone material changes since the sponsor licence was granted or last reviewed.

☐ Changes in direct ownership are referred for sponsor licence assessment.

☐ Mergers, acquisitions and takeovers trigger immigration due diligence.

☐ De-mergers and disposals are assessed for sponsor implications.

☐ TUPE transfers involving sponsored workers are identified.

☐ Internal group restructurings are assessed where they affect licensed entities or sponsored workers.

☐ We understand that a sponsor licence is not transferable.

☐ We identify the legal entity employing each sponsored worker.

☐ We assess whether a new sponsor licence application is required following relevant corporate changes.

☐ Required Home Office reports and applications are identified.

☐ Applicable deadlines are actively monitored, including the distinction between ordinary organisation changes running from awareness and specified corporate changes running from the change taking place.

☐ Sponsored workers affected by corporate changes are reviewed individually.

☐ Changes to roles, salaries, locations and working arrangements are assessed.

☐ Address and operating-location changes are considered for sponsor reporting purposes.

☐ Arrangements involving third-party work locations are understood and documented.

☐ Sponsor compliance forms part of transaction planning rather than being considered only after completion.

☐ Post-transaction reconciliation is carried out where appropriate.

☐ Evidence of corporate change assessments, reports, applications and resulting actions is retained.

The central control is:

Business change → sponsor impact assessment → required action → implementation → post-change reconciliation

Where the organisation has undergone significant change without carrying out this assessment, the sponsor licence position should be reviewed to determine whether historic or current action may be required.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section K: Home Office Compliance Visit Readiness

 

A sponsor should be capable of demonstrating compliance at any point during the life of its licence.

Home Office compliance activity is not limited to situations where an employer has already identified a problem. Compliance checks can be used to assess whether the organisation is meeting its sponsor duties, whether the information provided to the Home Office is accurate and whether the sponsor has effective systems for managing sponsored workers.

Compliance activity can include announced or unannounced visits. It can also include digital compliance checks and remote interviews.

The practical objective should therefore not be to prepare the organisation only when a Home Office visit is announced. The organisation’s normal systems, records and working practices should already be capable of demonstrating compliance.

A useful test is:

If a Home Office compliance officer examined the organisation today, could the sponsor explain how its systems work, produce the relevant evidence and demonstrate that its records correspond with operational reality?

 

1. Could You Explain Your Sponsor Compliance Systems?

 

The organisation should be able to explain how it manages its sponsor duties in practice.

This should include clear explanations of:

 

• who has overall responsibility for the sponsor licence;
• the role of the Authorising Officer;
• who manages day-to-day sponsorship activity;
• who has access to the Sponsor Management System;
• how SMS access and multi-factor authentication are controlled;
• how sponsored workers are identified;
• how Certificates of Sponsorship are requested, approved and assigned;
• how right to work checks are conducted;
• how immigration expiry dates are monitored;
• how sponsored worker attendance and absence are monitored;
• how changes to sponsored employment are identified;
• how potentially reportable events are escalated;
• how Home Office reporting deadlines are monitored;
• how sponsor records are maintained;
• how corporate changes are referred for immigration assessment; and
• how compliance concerns are investigated and remediated.

 

The employer should not rely solely on a written sponsor compliance policy to provide these answers.

Relevant personnel should understand the processes for which they are responsible and be able to describe how those processes operate.

For example, if the organisation’s policy states that sponsored worker absences are monitored, the employer should be able to explain who monitors them, where absences are recorded, what triggers escalation and who determines whether sponsor action is required.

A compliance system is stronger where the written procedure and the account given by the personnel operating that procedure are consistent.

 

2. Could You Produce a Sponsored Worker File Promptly?

 

A practical readiness exercise is to select a sponsored worker at random and attempt to produce the relevant records without advance preparation.

Depending on the circumstances, the organisation should be able to locate relevant evidence concerning:

 

• the worker’s identity;
• immigration status;
• right to work check;
• Certificate of Sponsorship;
• sponsored role;
• job description;
• recruitment;
• employment contract;
• salary;
• working hours;
• work location;
• contact details;
• qualifications or professional registration where relevant;
• attendance and absence;
• changes to employment;
• sponsor reports; and
• other records required under the applicable sponsor guidance and Appendix D.

 

The records should be sufficiently organised for the organisation to explain the worker’s sponsorship history.

If documents are distributed across several systems, the employer should understand how they can be retrieved and brought together.

Difficulty locating records can itself indicate a weakness in the organisation’s compliance framework, even where the documents eventually exist somewhere within the business.

 

3. Would Your HR Records Match the SMS?

 

The organisation should compare the information recorded internally with the information held for sponsorship purposes.

For sampled workers, check matters such as:

 

• job title;
• occupation;
• duties;
• salary;
• working hours;
• work location;
• employment start date;
• employment status; and
• relevant changes since sponsorship began.

 

Material discrepancies should be investigated.

For example, if the SMS and sponsorship records reflect one work location but HR records show that the worker permanently moved elsewhere, the organisation should establish when the change occurred and whether sponsor action was required.

The same applies where the worker’s internal job description has evolved significantly from the position originally described for sponsorship purposes.

The compliance question is not simply whether each individual system contains information. It is whether the systems collectively provide an accurate account of the sponsored employment.

 

4. Would Payroll Records Match the Sponsored Salary?

 

Payroll should form part of the compliance readiness review.

For sampled sponsored workers, employers should compare:

CoS salary → employment terms → HR salary record → payroll → actual payments

The review should consider whether:

 

• the expected salary is being paid;
• working hours correspond with the relevant employment arrangements;
• salary changes have been identified;
• reductions have been assessed for immigration implications;
• periods of unpaid or reduced-pay absence have been considered;
• relevant deductions have been identified where necessary; and
• payroll information can be explained if it differs from the sponsored remuneration.

 

The Home Office can compare sponsorship information with data held elsewhere in government, including HMRC information relating to sponsored worker pay.

Employers should therefore investigate unexplained discrepancies before they are identified during external scrutiny.

 

5. Would Managers Describe Sponsored Roles Consistently With the CoS?

 

Home Office scrutiny can extend beyond documents.

The organisation should be prepared for relevant personnel, and potentially sponsored workers, to be asked about the reality of the employment relationship.

As part of a mock compliance exercise, employers can ask the sponsored worker’s manager to explain:

 

• the worker’s job;
• their principal duties;
• where they work;
• who they report to;
• their level of responsibility;
• their normal working arrangements; and
• whether their role has changed.

 

This account can then be compared with the Certificate of Sponsorship, job description and HR records.

The objective is not to coach managers to provide predetermined answers.

It is to determine whether the organisation’s sponsorship records accurately reflect the job that exists in practice.

If the manager describes a materially different role, the discrepancy should be investigated.

 

6. Could Relevant Staff Explain Their Responsibilities?

 

A compliance review should test whether the people involved in sponsorship understand their own responsibilities.

This can include:

 

• the Authorising Officer;
• Level 1 Users;
• any remaining Level 2 Users during the phase-out period;
• HR personnel;
• recruitment personnel;
• payroll staff;
• line managers; and
• others involved in managing sponsored workers.

 

Different personnel will require different levels of knowledge.

A line manager does not necessarily need to understand the technical process for submitting an SMS report. They should, however, know that certain changes involving a sponsored worker need to be escalated.

Likewise, payroll personnel should understand that salary changes affecting sponsored workers can require immigration consideration.

The Authorising Officer should be able to demonstrate meaningful oversight rather than being unaware of how the organisation manages sponsorship.

Testing personnel can reveal a gap between the organisation’s written compliance framework and actual working practices.

 

7. Are You Prepared for an Unannounced Compliance Visit?

 

Home Office compliance visits can be announced or unannounced. Home Office operational guidance also provides for circumstances in which visits will normally be conducted without advance notice.

Employers should therefore not base their compliance arrangements on the assumption that they will receive time to prepare.

Consider what would happen if compliance officers attended today.

Would reception or security personnel know how to escalate the visit?

Could appropriate senior, HR or sponsor personnel be contacted?

Could relevant sponsored worker records be accessed?

Could the organisation identify its current sponsored workforce?

Could payroll information be obtained?

Could relevant managers be identified?

Would staff know who is authorised to deal with Home Office enquiries?

Employers should have a practical internal procedure for dealing with compliance visits without attempting to obstruct legitimate Home Office compliance activity.

Home Office sponsor guidance requires sponsors to cooperate with compliance checks. This can include providing access on demand to premises or sites under the sponsor’s control in relevant circumstances.

The purpose of a visit protocol should therefore be to ensure that the appropriate people are involved and that accurate information and records can be provided efficiently.

 

8. Have You Considered Sponsored Workers at Third-Party Premises?

 

Organisations with sponsored workers operating at client, customer or other third-party locations should consider those arrangements as part of compliance planning.

Home Office compliance activity can extend to premises or sites where sponsored workers perform their duties, including relevant third-party premises.

The sponsor should therefore understand:

 

• which sponsored workers operate at third-party sites;
• why they work at those locations;
• what duties they perform there;
• who supervises or manages their work;
• how attendance is monitored;
• how the sponsor maintains responsibility for the sponsored employment;
• what records exist concerning the arrangement; and
• whether the third party will cooperate appropriately with legitimate Home Office compliance activity.

 

The existence of a third-party working arrangement should not prevent the sponsor from understanding what its sponsored worker is doing or from meeting its sponsor duties.

The organisation should also ensure that the arrangement does not create a material discrepancy between the role described for sponsorship purposes and the reality of the worker’s activities.

 

9. Are You Prepared for Digital Compliance Checks and Remote Interviews?

 

Home Office compliance activity is not limited to physical visits.

Compliance checks can also involve digital processes and interviews conducted remotely by video conferencing.

Employers should therefore ensure that their compliance arrangements work effectively regardless of whether scrutiny takes place at their premises or remotely.

The organisation should be able to:

 

• identify appropriate personnel to participate;
• access relevant records electronically;
• produce requested information;
• explain its sponsor systems remotely;
• identify relevant sponsored workers and managers;
• respond accurately to questions about its sponsorship arrangements; and
• retain appropriate records of Home Office correspondence and subsequent action.

 

A business whose sponsor records can only be accessed physically from one office or by one employee may therefore have an operational weakness.

 

10. Are There Known Sponsor Compliance Weaknesses?

 

Employers should consider whether the organisation is already aware of potential compliance weaknesses.

Examples could include:

 

• missing sponsored worker records;
• outdated SMS information;
• historic reporting concerns;
• uncertainty over whether particular events were reported;
• incomplete recruitment evidence;
• salary discrepancies;
• role changes that were not assessed;
• weak absence monitoring;
• right to work record gaps;
• outdated key personnel;
• inactive SMS users;
• problems with SMS access or multi-factor authentication;
• corporate changes that were not reviewed for sponsorship implications;
• overdependence on one member of staff; or
• staff who do not understand the organisation’s sponsor compliance procedures.

 

A known weakness should not simply remain on an informal list of issues to address later.

The organisation should determine the nature of the problem, whether any immediate sponsor action is required and whether the weakness affects other workers or processes.

 

11. Have Identified Weaknesses Been Documented and Corrected?

 

Where an internal review identifies a problem, the organisation should document the issue and its response.

A useful remediation log can follow this structure:

Issue identified → risk assessed → action required → owner allocated → target date → action completed → evidence retained → follow-up test

The response should address both the immediate problem and, where appropriate, the underlying process weakness.

For example, if one sponsored worker’s salary change was not referred for immigration assessment, correcting the individual record may not be enough.

The organisation should also establish why the change was missed.

If salary changes can be implemented without the sponsor compliance function being notified, the employer may need to change its salary review or payroll process.

Records of remediation should accurately reflect what happened.

Employers should not retrospectively create, alter or reconstruct documents in a way that gives a misleading impression that a process was followed when it was not.

The correct approach is to identify the historic position, assess its implications and document the genuine corrective action taken.

 

12. Conduct a Mock Home Office Compliance Visit

 

A mock compliance visit can provide a practical test of the organisation’s readiness.

Rather than reviewing every policy in isolation, the exercise should test whether the organisation can respond to the types of questions and evidence requests that may arise during Home Office scrutiny.

A mock exercise could include:

 

• selecting sponsored workers at random;
• retrieving their files;
• checking right to work evidence;
• reviewing Certificates of Sponsorship;
• comparing sponsored roles with actual duties;
• reconciling salary against payroll;
• checking work locations;
• reviewing absence records;
• examining sponsor reporting history;
• checking SMS information;
• reviewing key personnel and SMS users;
• testing document retrieval;
• speaking to HR personnel;
• speaking to relevant managers;
• testing the Authorising Officer’s understanding of sponsor governance; and
• reviewing known compliance issues and remediation.

 

The exercise should test actual records and operational practices rather than becoming a theoretical discussion about what the organisation believes its procedures should do.

 

13. Test the Organisation’s Evidence Chain

 

The strongest compliance test is whether the organisation can reconstruct the full sponsorship and employment relationship for an individual worker.

The evidence chain should be capable of showing:

Recruitment → Certificate of Sponsorship → immigration permission → right to work → HR file → payroll → attendance → actual role → SMS → subsequent changes

Each stage should be capable of reconciliation with the next.

If recruitment records describe one role, the CoS another and the manager a third, the organisation should establish why.

If the CoS records one salary but payroll shows another, the difference should be explained.

If HR records show a change but there is no evidence that the sponsor implications were considered, the reporting process should be reviewed.

The purpose of this exercise is to test whether the organisation can evidence a coherent sponsorship history rather than simply produce individual documents.

 

14. Home Office Compliance Visit Readiness Test

 

At the end of the readiness review, the organisation should be able to answer yes to the following:

☐ We can explain how our sponsor compliance systems operate.

☐ Relevant personnel understand their responsibilities.

☐ Our Authorising Officer has meaningful oversight.

☐ We can identify our current sponsored workforce.

☐ We can retrieve sponsored worker files promptly.

☐ Our HR records can be reconciled with SMS information.

☐ Sponsored salaries can be reconciled with payroll.

☐ Managers can accurately describe sponsored workers’ roles.

☐ Actual duties correspond with the sponsored employment.

☐ Work locations and working arrangements can be explained.

☐ Attendance and absence records are available.

☐ Sponsor reporting activity can be evidenced.

☐ SMS users and key personnel are current.

☐ SMS access, inactivity and multi-factor authentication are being managed.

☐ We have a procedure for announced and unannounced Home Office compliance visits.

☐ Relevant reception, security or operational personnel know how to escalate a Home Office visit.

☐ We understand our obligations to cooperate with legitimate Home Office compliance activity.

☐ Third-party working locations involving sponsored workers have been considered.

☐ We can support a digital compliance check or remote interview.

☐ Known compliance weaknesses have been investigated.

☐ Corrective action has been documented.

☐ Remediated processes have been re-tested.

☐ Our records accurately reflect what happened rather than having been retrospectively reconstructed in a misleading way.

During the review, identified problems can usefully be distinguished between:

Isolated administrative error – a specific mistake that does not appear to indicate a wider failure.

Recurring procedural weakness – a process that repeatedly allows relevant information or action to be missed.

Systemic compliance failure – a broader failure indicating that the organisation’s sponsor compliance controls are not operating effectively.

The classification should not be treated as a substitute for assessing the legal significance of the underlying issue. It is a practical method of determining the scope of the investigation and remediation required.

Ultimately, Home Office compliance readiness can be reduced to a simple operational chain:

Written procedure → responsible person → operational process → accurate records → demonstrable compliance

The sponsor should be able to evidence each part of that chain before external scrutiny occurs.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section L: Sponsor Licence Compliance Audit

 

A sponsor licence compliance audit provides a structured way to test whether the organisation’s sponsorship systems are operating effectively.

The purpose is not simply to confirm that policies exist. An effective audit should examine sponsored worker records, Sponsor Management System information, HR processes, payroll data, reporting activity and actual working arrangements.

The audit should also identify weaknesses before they develop into wider compliance problems or are identified through Home Office scrutiny.

A useful audit framework is:

Scope → sample workers → inspect records → reconcile SMS → test HR systems → interview responsible staff → identify gaps → remediate → document actions

 

1. How Often Should Sponsor Licence Compliance Be Reviewed?

 

There is no single audit timetable that will be appropriate for every sponsor.

The frequency and depth of internal reviews should reflect the organisation’s size, sponsored worker population, organisational complexity, rate of change and compliance risk.

A business sponsoring a small number of workers in stable roles may require a different review programme from a large organisation that regularly assigns Certificates of Sponsorship, operates across multiple locations and frequently changes roles, salaries and corporate structures.

Rather than relying exclusively on a fixed annual review, employers should consider both periodic audits and event-driven reviews.

Events that may justify a sponsor compliance review include:

 

• the grant of a new sponsor licence;
• a significant increase in sponsored recruitment;
• rapid growth in the sponsored workforce;
• changes to the Authorising Officer or other key personnel;
• changes to Level 1 Users;
• changes to HR or payroll systems;
• changes to internal sponsor compliance procedures;
• significant changes to Home Office sponsor requirements;
• the introduction of new business locations;
• mergers or acquisitions;
• TUPE transfers;
• corporate restructuring;
• changes in direct ownership;
• concerns about right to work processes;
• identified reporting failures;
• significant changes affecting sponsored workers;
• the departure of personnel responsible for sponsor compliance;
• Home Office correspondence raising compliance issues; and
• preparation for anticipated Home Office scrutiny.

 

Employers should also consider whether higher-risk areas require more frequent testing than the sponsor licence as a whole.

For example, an organisation experiencing rapid recruitment may decide to review CoS assignment and sponsored worker onboarding more frequently than corporate change procedures.

The objective is to create a review programme proportionate to the organisation’s actual sponsorship activity.

 

2. How Should an Internal Sponsor Licence Audit Work?

 

An internal sponsor licence audit should be systematic enough to identify both individual errors and wider weaknesses in the organisation’s compliance systems.

The audit should therefore examine more than a selection of personnel files.

A comprehensive review can include:

Scope → worker sampling → document review → SMS reconciliation → HR testing → payroll testing → personnel interviews → findings → remediation → re-testing

The precise scope will depend on the organisation, but the following stages provide a practical framework.

 

3. Define the Audit Scope

 

Before starting the audit, establish what will be reviewed.

The scope could include:

 

• sponsor licence governance;
• key personnel;
• SMS users and access;
• multi-factor authentication arrangements;
• SMS account activity;
• Certificates of Sponsorship;
• sponsored worker records;
• Appendix D record keeping;
• right to work procedures;
• immigration expiry monitoring;
• attendance and absence monitoring;
• sponsor reporting;
• salary and payroll reconciliation;
• role and duty reconciliation;
• work locations;
• HR systems;
• corporate changes;
• third-party working arrangements;
• training;
• Home Office compliance visit readiness; and
• historic remediation activity.

 

The scope should also identify the period being reviewed.

Where concerns already exist, the audit may need to examine historic activity as well as the current position.

 

4. Select Sponsored Workers for Review

 

Where the organisation has only a small sponsored workforce, it may be practical to review every sponsored worker.

Larger sponsors may use a representative sample.

The sample should be designed to test different types of sponsorship activity rather than simply selecting the easiest or most complete files.

Depending on the organisation, the sample could include:

 

• recently sponsored workers;
• long-standing sponsored workers;
• workers who have extended their immigration permission;
• workers who have changed role;
• workers who have received salary changes;
• workers who have changed location;
• workers who have experienced significant absence;
• workers based at third-party premises;
• workers affected by corporate restructuring;
• workers who have transferred within a group;
• workers whose employment has ended; and
• workers sponsored under different applicable routes where relevant.

 

Risk-based sampling can be particularly useful because it tests circumstances in which sponsor duties are more likely to have been engaged.

 

5. Inspect the Sponsored Worker Records

 

For each worker selected, review the records required under the applicable sponsor guidance and Appendix D.

The audit should establish whether relevant records:

 

• exist;
• are accurate;
• are current;
• have been retained for the required period;
• can be retrieved promptly; and
• correspond with the worker’s actual employment.

 

The review should not become a simple document-counting exercise.

A file may contain numerous documents while still failing to explain the sponsored employment accurately.

The auditor should therefore ask whether the records collectively demonstrate:

Who is the worker?

Why were they sponsored?

What role were they sponsored to undertake?

What immigration permission do they hold?

What work are they actually undertaking?

What are they being paid?

Where are they working?

Have relevant changes been identified and addressed?

 

6. Reconcile the SMS With Internal Records

 

The Sponsor Management System should be reconciled against the organisation’s internal information.

For sampled workers, compare relevant information across:

CoS → SMS → personnel file → employment contract → payroll → manager account → actual working arrangements

Potential discrepancies should be investigated.

These can include differences involving:

 

• job title;
• occupation;
• duties;
• salary;
• hours;
• work location;
• employment status;
• start date;
• end date; and
• subsequent employment changes.

 

The audit should also examine whether relevant worker and organisational changes were reported where required and within the applicable timeframe.

Where the organisation identifies a difference, it should establish whether it represents:

 

• an administrative inconsistency;
• outdated internal information;
• outdated sponsor information;
• a reportable event that was correctly addressed;
• a potentially missed reporting obligation; or
• a more substantive sponsorship issue requiring investigation.

 

7. Test the HR Systems

 

The audit should test whether the organisation’s compliance processes operate in practice.

Select real HR events and trace them through the relevant systems.

For example:

Salary change → sponsored worker identified → immigration assessment → required sponsor action → payroll implementation → evidence retained

Role change → sponsored worker identified → sponsorship implications assessed → action completed → HR record updated

Resignation → HR notification → sponsored status identified → sponsor team informed → SMS action completed where required → evidence retained

Immigration expiry → system alert → worker contacted → status established → follow-up right to work action → records updated

The audit should also test what happens when the normal process does not operate smoothly.

For example:

 

• What happens if a worker does not respond to an immigration expiry reminder?
• What happens if the usual Level 1 User is absent?
• What happens if a manager implements a role change without first contacting HR?
• What happens if payroll identifies an unexpected salary discrepancy?
• What happens if a potentially reportable event is discovered after the relevant deadline?

 

These exception scenarios can provide a better indication of compliance resilience than testing only routine cases.

 

8. Test Payroll Against Sponsorship Records

 

Payroll should be included within the audit because sponsored remuneration should be capable of reconciliation with the information used for sponsorship purposes.

For sampled workers, compare:

Sponsored salary → contractual salary → payroll record → actual payment

The audit should investigate material differences and consider whether changes were assessed for sponsor implications.

The review should also test cumulative periods of reduced or unpaid remuneration against the applicable four-week rule, including the Scale-up distinction, permitted exceptions, reporting and whether sponsorship should have stopped.

The objective is to ensure that the salary described in the sponsorship process corresponds with the worker’s actual remuneration or that any legitimate difference can be properly explained and evidenced.

 

9. Speak to Relevant Personnel

 

A sponsor audit should not necessarily be limited to documentary evidence.

Speaking to relevant personnel can test whether the organisation’s procedures are understood and implemented.

Depending on the scope of the audit, this can include:

 

• the Authorising Officer;
• Level 1 Users;
• HR personnel;
• recruitment staff;
• payroll personnel;
• line managers;
• corporate or operational personnel; and
• others involved in managing sponsored workers.

 

The purpose is not to test whether every employee understands immigration law.

It is to determine whether each person understands the compliance responsibilities relevant to their role.

For example, a manager should know that proposed changes affecting a sponsored worker need to be escalated. Payroll should know that relevant salary changes may require immigration review. The Authorising Officer should understand the organisation’s sponsor governance arrangements.

 

10. Record Audit Findings Clearly

 

Audit findings should be documented clearly enough for the organisation to understand what was tested, what was identified and what action is required.

A practical findings schedule can record:

 

• the area reviewed;
• the evidence examined;
• the issue identified;
• the workers or processes affected;
• the potential compliance significance;
• the corrective action required;
• the person responsible;
• the target completion date;
• the action ultimately completed; and
• the result of any subsequent re-test.

 

For internal management purposes, findings can also be classified according to their practical significance.

For example:

Compliant – the process or record tested appears to meet the applicable requirement.

Improvement required – the process operates but could be strengthened.

Potential compliance issue – a matter requiring further assessment or corrective action.

Systemic weakness – an issue indicating that the organisation’s underlying compliance process may not be operating effectively.

This classification is not a Home Office rating system and should not be treated as a substitute for legal assessment of the underlying issue.

Its purpose is to help the organisation prioritise investigation and remediation.

 

11. What Should You Do If the Audit Identifies a Problem?

 

A sponsor compliance audit is valuable only if identified issues are investigated and addressed.

The appropriate response will depend on the nature and seriousness of the problem.

The first step should be to establish the facts.

Ask:

 

• What happened?
• When did it happen?
• Which worker, workers or processes are affected?
• Why did the problem occur?
• Is the issue continuing?
• Does it affect the accuracy of SMS information?
• Was a sponsor report required?
• Is any report or other action still required?
• Does the issue affect the worker’s immigration position?
• Does it affect right to work compliance?
• Is the problem isolated or systemic?
• What corrective action is available?

 

The organisation should avoid jumping directly from identifying an error to changing records without first understanding the underlying position.

 

12. Administrative Corrections

 

Some audit findings may involve relatively straightforward administrative weaknesses.

Examples could include:

 

• documents stored in the wrong location;
• inconsistent file naming;
• outdated internal contact information;
• duplicate records;
• missing internal audit notes; or
• procedural documentation that no longer reflects the organisation’s current process.

 

Where the matter is genuinely administrative, it should be corrected and the underlying process strengthened where necessary.

However, employers should avoid treating an issue as administrative merely because it can be corrected easily.

The compliance significance depends on the underlying sponsor requirement and the circumstances.

 

13. Potentially Reportable Events

 

If the audit identifies an event that may have required a Home Office report, the organisation should establish:

 

• what event occurred;
• whether it was reportable;
• what deadline applied;
• whether a report was made;
• whether the report was accurate;
• whether any further action is now required; and
• why the normal reporting process did not identify the event.

 

Where a reporting deadline may have been missed, the organisation should assess the appropriate corrective action rather than ignoring the issue because the deadline has already passed.

The employer should also address the process failure that allowed the event to be missed.

 

14. Worker-Specific Immigration Issues

 

Some findings may raise questions about an individual worker’s sponsorship or immigration position.

These can involve matters such as:

 

• material changes to the sponsored role;
• salary discrepancies;
• changes to working arrangements;
• immigration expiry concerns;
• right to work issues;
• unreported employment changes;
• changes of employing entity; or
• other discrepancies between sponsorship records and actual employment.

 

These issues should be assessed individually because the appropriate action will depend on the worker’s immigration route, permission and circumstances.

The organisation should also consider whether the same issue could affect other sponsored workers.

 

15. Systemic Process Failures

 

A systemic weakness requires broader remediation than correcting individual records.

Examples could include:

 

• salary changes routinely occurring without immigration review;
• managers changing sponsored workers’ duties without notifying HR;
• absence information not reaching the sponsor team;
• right to work follow-up dates not being monitored;
• SMS reporting depending entirely on one employee;
• corporate transactions taking place without sponsor licence review;
• sponsored worker files being consistently incomplete; or
• staff not understanding the organisation’s escalation procedures.

 

In these circumstances, fixing the sampled worker’s record does not resolve the underlying compliance problem.

The organisation should determine how many other workers or events may have been affected and redesign the relevant process.

 

16. Create a Sponsor Compliance Remediation Plan

 

Where issues are identified, the organisation should create a documented remediation plan.

A practical format is:

Issue → legal/compliance assessment → corrective action → responsible owner → deadline → completion evidence → re-test

The plan should distinguish between immediate actions and longer-term improvements.

Immediate action may be required where there is an ongoing right to work concern, inaccurate sponsorship information, a potentially outstanding report or another active compliance risk.

Longer-term action may involve:

 

• rewriting procedures;
• changing HR workflows;
• introducing automated alerts;
• changing approval processes;
• improving record keeping;
• providing staff training;
• increasing SMS user resilience;
• introducing regular reconciliation exercises; or
• establishing periodic internal audits.

 

Remediation records should accurately describe the issue identified and the action actually taken.

Documents should not be retrospectively created or altered in a way that misleadingly suggests a compliant process occurred when it did not.

 

17. Re-Test After Remediation

 

Completing a corrective action does not necessarily demonstrate that the underlying process now works.

The organisation should re-test significant remediation measures.

For example, if a new process has been introduced requiring managers to refer sponsored worker salary changes to HR, the organisation can review subsequent salary changes to confirm that the referral process is actually operating.

The remediation cycle should therefore be:

Identify → investigate → correct → improve → implement → re-test

Re-testing is particularly important where the original audit identified a recurring or systemic weakness.

 

18. Sponsor Licence Audit Checklist

 

At the end of the internal audit, the organisation should be able to answer yes to the following:

☐ The scope and period of the audit were clearly defined.

☐ The audit considered sponsor governance and key personnel.

☐ SMS access, active users and multi-factor authentication arrangements were reviewed.

☐ A representative or risk-based sample of sponsored workers was selected.

☐ Required sponsored worker records were checked.

☐ Appendix D record-keeping requirements were considered.

☐ Right to work records and follow-up processes were tested.

☐ Certificates of Sponsorship were reconciled with actual employment.

☐ SMS information was compared with HR records.

☐ Sponsored salaries were reconciled with payroll.

☐ Actual job duties were compared with sponsored roles.

☐ Work locations and working arrangements were reviewed.

☐ Attendance and absence monitoring was tested.

☐ Sponsor reporting processes were reviewed.

☐ Relevant reporting deadlines were tested.

☐ Corporate changes were reviewed for sponsor implications.

☐ Relevant HR processes were tested using actual events.

☐ Relevant personnel were able to explain their responsibilities.

☐ Compliance findings were documented.

☐ Potential issues were investigated rather than simply corrected administratively.

☐ Remediation actions were allocated to responsible owners.

☐ Completion of remediation was evidenced.

☐ Significant process changes were re-tested.

☐ The audit considered whether individual findings indicated wider systemic weaknesses.

A meaningful sponsor licence audit ultimately tests the relationship between:

Rules → procedures → people → records → operational reality → evidence → remediation

The organisation should be able to demonstrate that these elements operate together as a functioning sponsor compliance system.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section M: Sponsor Compliance Checklist: Final Review

 

The following final review brings together the principal areas covered by this sponsor licence compliance checklist.

It can be used as a high-level internal check after completing the more detailed review above, or as a starting point for identifying areas that require closer investigation.

A yes answer should mean more than having a policy or assuming that a process exists. The organisation should be able to demonstrate the position through its systems, records and working practices.

Where the answer is no, unclear or not tested, the issue should be investigated to determine whether corrective action is required.

 

1. Sponsor Licence Governance

 

☐ Responsibility for sponsor licence compliance is clearly allocated.

☐ The Authorising Officer remains appropriate and exercises meaningful oversight.

☐ The Key Contact is current.

☐ Level 1 Users are current, eligible and appropriately authorised.

☐ Any remaining Level 2 Users are being managed in accordance with the current phase-out requirements.

☐ SMS access is restricted to appropriate users.

☐ Multi-factor authentication arrangements are operational, required user details are current and credentials or one-time passcodes are not shared.

☐ SMS accounts are being accessed sufficiently to avoid inactivity, with Level 1 access maintained in line with the Home Office recommendation of at least monthly access.

☐ The organisation maintains appropriate active Level 1 User coverage.

☐ Sponsor licence information reflects the organisation’s current circumstances.

☐ Changes affecting key personnel are identified and actioned where required.

 

2. Sponsored Workers

 

☐ We can identify every worker currently sponsored by the organisation.

☐ Each sponsored worker is employed in the role for which they are sponsored.

☐ Actual duties correspond with the sponsored role and no unpermitted mismatch exists between the actual role and the CoS occupation code or job description.

☐ Job titles and occupation information remain appropriate.

☐ Sponsored salaries correspond with payroll records and relevant salary changes have been assessed under the correct reporting rules.

☐ Working hours are consistent with the sponsored arrangements.

☐ Work locations and working arrangements are understood.

☐ Changes to sponsored employment are identified and assessed.

☐ Sponsored worker attendance and absence are monitored.

☐ Relevant worker events are referred promptly for sponsor compliance assessment.

 

3. Sponsor Record Keeping

 

☐ Required sponsored worker documents are retained.

☐ Record keeping reflects the current Home Office sponsor guidance and Appendix D requirements.

☐ Records are accurate and current.

☐ Records are retained for the applicable period.

☐ Sponsored worker files can be retrieved promptly.

☐ The required history of UK residential address, personal email address and telephone number is maintained.

☐ Date-of-entry evidence is retained where required under Appendix D.

☐ Appropriate recruitment evidence is retained.

☐ Where a role was not advertised, the organisation can retain and provide the applicable evidence or explanation of how the worker was recruited where required by Appendix D.

☐ We do not incorrectly assume that every sponsored Skilled Worker role is subject to a general resident labour market advertising requirement.

 

4. Right to Work

 

☐ An appropriate right to work check has been completed for each relevant worker.

☐ The correct checking method was used.

☐ Required checks were completed at the appropriate time.

☐ Evidence of right to work checks is retained correctly.

☐ Time-limited immigration permission is identified and monitored where follow-up action is required.

☐ Follow-up checks are diarised and completed where required.

☐ The Employer Checking Service is used where appropriate.

☐ Sponsored workers’ immigration conditions are considered alongside their actual employment.

☐ Changes to employment trigger immigration review where appropriate.

☐ Non-standard working arrangements are assessed under the right to work regime applying from 1 October 2026 where relevant.

☐ Potential illegal working concerns are escalated promptly.

 

5. Sponsor Reporting

 

☐ Events affecting sponsored workers can be identified promptly.

☐ Relevant managers know when to refer changes for sponsor compliance assessment.

☐ HR events are connected to the sponsor reporting process.

☐ Payroll changes affecting sponsored workers can trigger immigration review.

☐ Resignations and terminations are escalated appropriately.

☐ Relevant absence issues are identified.

☐ Organisational changes are considered for sponsor reporting purposes.

☐ Applicable reporting deadlines are monitored.

☐ We recognise that many specified worker-related events are subject to a 10-working-day reporting period.

☐ We recognise that specified corporate changes can engage a 20-working-day reporting or application period.

☐ The precise reporting requirement and deadline are checked for the particular event.

☐ SMS reports are documented and an appropriate audit trail is retained.

☐ Potentially late or missed reports are investigated and escalated.

 

6. Certificates of Sponsorship

 

☐ CoS requests follow a defined internal approval process.

☐ Certificates of Sponsorship are assigned only by appropriately authorised SMS users.

☐ Information is checked before a CoS is assigned.

☐ Job title, occupation, duties, salary, hours and work location are verified as appropriate.

☐ The applicable sponsorship requirements are assessed.

☐ The organisation can evidence the genuine role.

☐ The business can explain why the sponsored position exists.

☐ Recruitment evidence is retained where required.

☐ CoS assignments are reconciled against subsequent immigration and employment records.

☐ The worker’s actual employment corresponds with the sponsored arrangements.

☐ CoS allocation and usage are appropriately controlled.

 

7. HR Systems

 

☐ Immigration expiry dates are recorded and monitored where required.

☐ Sponsored worker attendance and absence can be monitored.

☐ Changes to sponsored roles can be identified.

☐ Salary and working-hours changes can be identified.

☐ Changes to work location and working arrangements can be identified.

☐ HR personnel understand which events should be referred for immigration assessment.

☐ Recruitment processes incorporate sponsorship and right to work controls.

☐ Onboarding connects immigration, HR and payroll processes.

☐ Offboarding identifies sponsored workers and triggers appropriate sponsor review.

☐ Relevant personnel receive sponsor compliance training appropriate to their responsibilities.

☐ Sponsor compliance is not dependent entirely on one employee.

☐ Cover arrangements exist for key sponsor compliance functions.

☐ Actual HR events have been tested to establish whether the processes operate in practice.

 

8. Organisational and Corporate Changes

 

☐ Corporate changes trigger sponsor licence assessment.

☐ Changes in direct ownership are identified.

☐ Mergers, acquisitions and takeovers are considered for sponsorship implications.

☐ TUPE transfers involving sponsored workers are identified.

☐ Group restructurings are reviewed where relevant.

☐ Changes to employing entities are identified.

☐ Address and operating-location changes are considered.

☐ We understand that a sponsor licence is not transferable.

☐ We assess whether corporate changes require a new sponsor licence application.

☐ Relevant reports, applications and worker-level actions are completed.

☐ Applicable corporate change deadlines are monitored.

☐ Sponsor compliance is considered before significant transactions complete.

☐ Post-transaction reconciliation is carried out where appropriate.

 

9. Home Office Compliance Visit Readiness

 

☐ We can explain how our sponsor compliance systems operate.

☐ We can identify our current sponsored workforce.

☐ Sponsored worker files can be produced promptly.

☐ SMS information can be reconciled with HR records.

☐ Sponsored salary information can be reconciled with payroll.

☐ Managers can accurately explain sponsored workers’ roles.

☐ Actual working arrangements correspond with sponsorship records.

☐ Relevant personnel understand their compliance responsibilities.

☐ The Authorising Officer understands the organisation’s sponsor arrangements.

☐ We have considered how we would respond to an announced or unannounced Home Office compliance visit.

☐ Relevant staff know how to escalate a Home Office visit appropriately.

☐ We understand our obligation to cooperate with legitimate Home Office compliance activity.

☐ Arrangements involving sponsored workers at third-party premises have been reviewed.

☐ We can support digital compliance checks and remote interviews.

☐ Known compliance weaknesses are documented and being addressed.

 

10. Internal Sponsor Licence Audit

 

☐ Sponsor compliance is reviewed periodically and following significant events.

☐ Audits test actual systems rather than policies alone.

☐ Sponsored worker samples are selected on an appropriate basis.

☐ Worker records are reconciled with the SMS.

☐ Payroll is reconciled with sponsored salary information.

☐ Actual duties are compared with sponsored roles.

☐ Right to work processes are tested.

☐ Reporting processes are tested using real events.

☐ Relevant personnel are interviewed where appropriate.

☐ Audit findings are documented.

☐ Potential compliance issues are investigated.

☐ Corrective actions are allocated to responsible owners.

☐ Remediation is evidenced.

☐ Significant process improvements are re-tested.

☐ Individual errors are considered for evidence of wider systemic weaknesses.

 

11. Final Sponsor Compliance Test

 

Once the individual checklist areas have been reviewed, the organisation should perform one final reconciliation.

Select a sample of sponsored workers and compare:

SMS records → personnel records → payroll → management account → actual working arrangements

For each worker, the organisation should be capable of answering the following questions clearly:

Who is this person?

The organisation should be able to establish the worker’s identity and current immigration status.

Why were they sponsored?

The business should be able to explain the genuine organisational need for the sponsored role and the circumstances in which the worker was recruited.

What role were they sponsored to perform?

The Certificate of Sponsorship and supporting records should provide a clear description of the sponsored employment.

What work are they actually doing?

The worker’s manager, HR records and operational reality should correspond with the sponsored role.

Where are they working?

The organisation should understand the worker’s normal work locations and any relevant third-party, remote or hybrid arrangements.

What are they being paid?

Payroll should be capable of reconciliation with the sponsored remuneration arrangements.

What immigration permission do they hold?

The employer should be able to establish the worker’s current immigration status, applicable conditions and right to work position.

Have relevant changes been identified?

The organisation should be able to identify changes affecting the worker’s role, salary, hours, location, attendance, employment or immigration position.

Have required sponsor actions been completed?

Where an event required an SMS report, immigration action or another sponsor response, the organisation should be able to demonstrate what was done and when.

Can we evidence each of these points?

The organisation should be capable of producing records that support its explanation rather than relying on assumptions or individual recollection.

The final test is therefore not whether the organisation possesses a sponsor licence compliance policy.

It is whether the following three elements correspond:

sponsor requirements → internal systems → employment activity → evidence

Where these elements tell the same story, the organisation is better placed to demonstrate effective sponsor licence compliance.

Where they do not, the discrepancy should be investigated, assessed and addressed.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section N: What Happens If Your Sponsor Compliance Check Identifies Problems?

 

Identifying a problem during a sponsor licence compliance review does not automatically mean that enforcement action will follow. The significance of the issue will depend on what has happened, which sponsor duty is affected, whether sponsored workers are involved, whether the problem is isolated or systemic and what action the organisation takes in response.

The important point is not to ignore a known compliance issue.

Once a potential problem has been identified, the organisation should establish the facts, assess the implications and determine what corrective action is required.

A practical response framework is:

Identify → investigate → assess → correct → document → improve → re-test

 

1. Assess the Nature of the Compliance Problem

 

The first stage is to understand exactly what has happened.

The organisation should consider:

 

• which sponsor duty may have been affected;
• when the issue arose;
• how long it has continued;
• which sponsored workers are affected;
• whether the issue is still ongoing;
• whether information held on the SMS is inaccurate or incomplete;
• whether a Home Office report was required;
• whether an applicable reporting deadline was missed;
• whether the issue affects a worker’s immigration position;
• whether there are right to work implications;
• whether the problem resulted from an individual error or a wider process failure;
• whether similar cases may exist elsewhere in the organisation; and
• whether immediate action is required.

 

The employer should distinguish between the symptom of the problem and its underlying cause.

For example, discovering one unreported salary change may indicate an isolated administrative error. Alternatively, it may reveal that the organisation has no process for notifying the sponsor compliance team when payroll changes the salary of a sponsored worker.

The second situation requires a broader investigation.

 

2. Corrective Action

 

Once the facts have been established, the organisation should determine what corrective action is appropriate.

Depending on the circumstances, this may involve:

 

• correcting internal records;
• updating sponsor licence information;
• making an SMS report;
• assessing whether a late report should be made;
• taking immigration action in relation to an individual worker;
• carrying out or obtaining an appropriate right to work verification;
• correcting payroll or HR information;
• reviewing a sponsored worker’s role;
• updating internal procedures;
• providing additional staff training;
• changing approval or escalation processes;
• reviewing other sponsored workers who may have been affected by the same weakness; or
• obtaining specialist advice where the position is uncertain or potentially serious.

 

Corrective action should address both the immediate issue and, where necessary, the process that allowed the issue to occur.

For example:

Missed report identified → reporting position assessed → corrective action taken → reason for failure investigated → reporting process improved → subsequent events re-tested

This is more effective than correcting the individual case while leaving the underlying weakness unchanged.

 

3. Increased Home Office Scrutiny

 

Where the Home Office has concerns about a sponsor’s compliance, it can investigate further.

This may involve requests for information or documents, interviews, digital compliance activity or a compliance visit.

Compliance visits may be announced or unannounced, and scrutiny can extend beyond the sponsor’s central HR records to the practical operation of its sponsorship arrangements.

The Home Office may examine matters such as:

 

• sponsor governance;
• key personnel;
• SMS records;
• sponsored worker files;
• Certificates of Sponsorship;
• right to work records;
• recruitment evidence;
• payroll;
• attendance and absence;
• actual job duties;
• work locations;
• reporting history; and
• the organisation’s HR and compliance systems.

 

The sponsor should therefore ensure that any explanation given to the Home Office is accurate and consistent with the available evidence.

 

4. Sponsor Licence Downgrade and Action Plans

 

In certain circumstances involving breaches that the Home Office considers capable of remediation, an A-rated sponsor may be downgraded to a B-rating and required to follow a sponsor action plan.

An action plan identifies steps the sponsor is required to take to address the relevant compliance weaknesses.

The action-plan fee must normally be paid within 10 working days of notification and the action plan runs for 3 months.

While B-rated, the sponsor cannot normally assign Certificates of Sponsorship to new workers until its A-rating has been restored, subject to the applicable exceptions. A sponsor can ordinarily be B-rated and subject to an action plan only twice within a rolling four-year period.

The sponsor must complete the required improvements within the action plan process and demonstrate that the identified compliance issues have been addressed.

A downgrade should therefore be treated as a significant compliance matter rather than simply an administrative change to the sponsor’s rating.

 

5. Sponsor Licence Suspension

 

Where the Home Office believes that a sponsor may be breaching its duties or otherwise presents relevant compliance concerns, it can suspend the sponsor licence while the position is considered.

While a sponsor licence is suspended, the sponsor cannot assign any Certificates of Sponsorship. Suspension can therefore significantly affect the organisation’s ability to use the sponsorship system and can create uncertainty for its sponsored workforce.

Where a licence is suspended, the sponsor should carefully review:

 

• the allegations or concerns raised by the Home Office;
• the evidence relied upon;
• the relevant sponsor guidance;
• the organisation’s own records;
• the position of affected sponsored workers;
• any factual inaccuracies or misunderstandings;
• any genuine compliance failures;
• remedial action already taken; and
• the requirements and deadline for responding.

 

A response should be evidence-led and address the Home Office concerns directly.

Employers should not assume that suspension will always occur before more serious sponsor action. The Home Office’s response depends on the nature and circumstances of the compliance issue and the applicable sponsor guidance.

 

6. Sponsor Licence Revocation

 

Serious sponsor compliance breaches can result in revocation of the sponsor licence.

Revocation is substantially more serious than identifying an internal compliance weakness because the organisation loses its authority to sponsor workers under the affected licence.

It can also have significant consequences for sponsored workers whose immigration permission is linked to the organisation’s sponsorship.

The sponsor guidance identifies circumstances in which the Home Office may or must revoke a licence, depending on the nature of the breach.

Potentially serious issues can include matters involving the misuse of sponsorship, non-genuine roles, illegal working, significant failures to comply with sponsor duties or other circumstances specified in the applicable guidance.

Not every administrative error leads to revocation. The significance of a compliance issue depends on the relevant rule, the facts and the wider circumstances.

Employers should therefore avoid both extremes: assuming that every mistake threatens the licence, or assuming that apparently minor issues can safely be ignored.

 

7. Document the Remediation

 

Where a compliance problem is identified and corrected, the organisation should retain an appropriate record of the remediation.

A remediation record can show:

 

• what issue was identified;
• when it was discovered;
• how the issue was investigated;
• which workers or processes were affected;
• what compliance assessment was undertaken;
• what immediate action was required;
• who was responsible for the corrective action;
• when the action was completed;
• what supporting evidence was retained;
• what process improvements were introduced; and
• whether those improvements were subsequently re-tested.

 

This provides a clear audit trail of the organisation’s response.

It can also help senior management understand recurring weaknesses and determine whether further investment in systems, training or compliance resources is required.

 

8. Do Not Conceal Compliance Problems

 

Employers should not attempt to conceal a sponsor compliance problem or retrospectively alter records to create a misleading impression that a required process was followed.

If a document was not retained, a report was missed or a check was not completed at the appropriate time, the organisation should establish the true position and determine how it should now be addressed.

There is an important difference between:

correcting an inaccurate record

and

creating a false historic record to suggest that an action occurred when it did not.

Internal remediation should preserve an accurate account of events.

Where explanatory notes or retrospective records are created as part of an investigation, they should accurately identify when they were created and what they are intended to record.

 

9. When to Seek Specialist Advice

 

Specialist advice may be appropriate where the organisation identifies an issue that could materially affect its sponsor licence or a sponsored worker’s immigration position.

This can include situations involving:

 

• potential illegal working;
• significant right to work concerns;
• suspected misuse of sponsorship;
• questions over whether a sponsored role is genuine;
• material differences between sponsored and actual job duties;
• significant salary discrepancies;
• multiple missed sponsor reports;
• historic reporting failures;
• corporate transactions that were not assessed for sponsor implications;
• changes in ownership or employing entity;
• potentially incorrect CoS assignments;
• systemic record-keeping failures;
• Home Office requests for information;
• a compliance visit;
• a sponsor action plan;
• downgrading;
• suspension; or
• potential revocation.

 

Early assessment can help the organisation understand the significance of the problem, determine what action is available and avoid making further changes that inadvertently complicate the position.

The objective following any compliance problem should be to establish an accurate position and restore effective controls:

Identify → investigate → assess → correct → document → improve → re-test

 

 

Back to top

 

Section O: Sponsor Licence Compliance Checklist FAQs

 

What is a sponsor licence compliance checklist?

A sponsor licence compliance checklist is a structured review of the systems, records and procedures an organisation uses to meet its duties as a licensed sponsor.

It can be used to assess areas including sponsor licence governance, sponsored worker records, right to work checks, Certificates of Sponsorship, SMS reporting, salary and payroll information, attendance monitoring, HR processes and organisational changes.

The purpose is to identify whether the organisation can demonstrate compliance in practice rather than simply confirming that written policies exist.

A comprehensive review should therefore compare the organisation’s sponsor records with its actual employment arrangements.

A useful overall test is:

SMS records → personnel records → payroll → management account → actual working arrangements

 

What does the Home Office check for sponsor licence compliance?

The Home Office can examine whether a sponsor is meeting the duties associated with its licence and whether the information provided through the sponsorship system accurately reflects the organisation and its sponsored workers.

Depending on the circumstances, scrutiny can include:

 

• sponsor licence governance and key personnel;
• Sponsor Management System records;
• Certificates of Sponsorship;
• sponsored worker personnel files;
• right to work records;
• records required under Appendix D;
• recruitment evidence where applicable;
• job roles and duties;
• salaries and payroll records;
• working hours;
• work locations;
• attendance and absence monitoring;
• sponsor reporting activity;
• HR systems;
• organisational changes; and
• whether the sponsor’s actual practices correspond with the information provided to the Home Office.

 

Home Office compliance activity can involve document requests, interviews, digital compliance checks and announced or unannounced visits.

 

How often should sponsor licence compliance be audited?

There is no single audit frequency that is appropriate for every sponsor.

The organisation should adopt a review programme appropriate to its size, sponsored worker population, level of sponsorship activity, organisational complexity and compliance risk.

In addition to periodic reviews, an audit may be appropriate following significant events such as rapid sponsored recruitment, changes to key personnel, changes to HR systems, mergers and acquisitions, TUPE transfers, restructuring, changes in ownership, significant compliance concerns or Home Office contact.

Higher-risk areas can also be tested more frequently than the sponsor licence arrangements as a whole.

The important point is that sponsor compliance should be monitored throughout the life of the licence rather than reviewed only when a Home Office visit is expected.

 

What records must a sponsor licence holder keep?

Sponsors are required to retain specified records relating to sponsored workers and their sponsorship arrangements.

The precise documents and retention requirements depend on the applicable Home Office sponsor guidance, including Appendix D: Keeping Documents – Guidance for Sponsors.

Depending on the worker and circumstances, relevant records can include evidence relating to identity, immigration status, right to work, recruitment, the sponsored role, salary, contact details and other matters required under the sponsor guidance.

Employers should use the current version of Appendix D to determine which documents have to be retained and for how long.

Records should not only exist. They should also be accurate, appropriately retained and capable of being produced when required.

 

What are the main sponsor licence compliance duties?

Sponsor duties extend across several areas of the employment and sponsorship relationship.

In practical terms, employers need systems capable of:

 

• maintaining required sponsored worker records;
• monitoring relevant immigration information;
• monitoring attendance and absence;
• identifying relevant changes affecting sponsored workers;
• making required reports to the Home Office;
• keeping sponsor licence information current;
• using Certificates of Sponsorship appropriately;
• ensuring sponsored roles are genuine and correspond with actual employment;
• complying with applicable immigration requirements; and
• cooperating with Home Office compliance activity.

 

The detailed duties depend on the applicable sponsorship route and current Home Office guidance.

 

Does the Home Office conduct sponsor licence compliance visits?

Yes. The Home Office can conduct compliance visits to assess whether an organisation is meeting its sponsor duties.

Compliance activity can take place at different stages of the sponsorship relationship and can involve examination of records, systems, personnel and actual working arrangements.

A compliance officer may seek to establish whether the organisation has effective HR systems, whether sponsored workers are undertaking genuine sponsored roles and whether the information held by the Home Office corresponds with the reality of the employment.

Sponsors should therefore maintain ongoing compliance rather than treating a Home Office visit as the point at which records and systems need to be brought up to date.

 

Can the Home Office carry out an unannounced sponsor compliance visit?

Yes. Sponsor compliance visits can be announced or unannounced.

Sponsors should therefore have procedures for dealing appropriately with Home Office officers attending their premises without advance notice.

Relevant reception, security, HR and management personnel should know how to escalate the visit, while appropriate sponsor personnel should be capable of accessing records and explaining the organisation’s compliance systems.

Sponsors are required to cooperate with legitimate Home Office compliance activity. This can include providing access on demand to relevant premises or sites under the sponsor’s control.

Compliance activity can also extend to relevant third-party locations where sponsored workers perform their duties, and sponsors should consider cooperation arrangements where workers operate at such sites.

 

Who is responsible for sponsor licence compliance?

The Authorising Officer has senior responsibility for the sponsor licence, while Level 1 Users undertake relevant day-to-day Sponsor Management System functions.

However, effective sponsor compliance is usually an organisational responsibility extending beyond the individuals formally named on the licence.

HR personnel, recruiters, payroll staff, line managers and those responsible for corporate changes can all generate or hold information relevant to the sponsor’s duties.

The organisation should therefore allocate responsibilities clearly and ensure that relevant information reaches the appropriate sponsor compliance personnel.

Being named as the Authorising Officer or Key Contact does not, by itself, automatically provide SMS access. Appropriate SMS user access must be separately held where required.

 

What happens if a sponsor breaches its compliance duties?

The consequences depend on the nature and seriousness of the breach and the applicable sponsor guidance.

Home Office action can include further investigation or compliance scrutiny. In relevant circumstances, action can also include downgrading the sponsor’s licence to a B-rating with an action plan, suspension or revocation.

A B-rated sponsor is subject to restrictions while completing its action plan. The action-plan fee must normally be paid within 10 working days, the plan runs for 3 months, and the sponsor cannot normally assign Certificates of Sponsorship to new workers until its A-rating has been restored. A sponsor can ordinarily be subject to this process only twice within a rolling four-year period.

While a licence is suspended, the sponsor cannot assign Certificates of Sponsorship. Serious breaches can result in sponsor licence revocation.

Not every administrative error results in formal enforcement action. Employers should nevertheless investigate identified problems promptly and determine whether corrective, reporting or other action is required.

 

Can minor sponsor licence compliance errors be corrected?

Some isolated administrative errors can be capable of correction, but employers should first establish the nature and significance of the issue.

An apparently minor error may indicate a wider weakness if the same problem has occurred repeatedly or affects multiple sponsored workers.

The organisation should therefore determine:

 

• what happened;
• why it happened;
• whether a sponsor duty was breached;
• whether any Home Office action is required;
• whether other workers are affected; and
• whether the underlying process needs to be changed.

 

Corrective action should be documented accurately.

Employers should not retrospectively alter or create records in a way that misleadingly suggests a required process was followed when it was not.

 

How should employers prepare for a Home Office compliance visit?

The strongest preparation is to maintain compliant systems continuously.

As part of a readiness review, employers can test whether they can:

 

• identify all current sponsored workers;
• produce sponsored worker records promptly;
• explain their sponsor compliance procedures;
• reconcile SMS information with HR records;
• reconcile sponsored salary information with payroll;
• demonstrate appropriate right to work processes;
• explain how attendance and absence are monitored;
• evidence sponsor reporting activity;
• demonstrate how Certificates of Sponsorship are controlled;
• show how relevant employment changes are escalated;
• explain the organisation’s corporate change procedures; and
• demonstrate how identified compliance weaknesses are remediated.

 

A mock compliance visit can be used to test these systems against actual sponsored worker files and working arrangements.

 

Should employers conduct internal sponsor licence audits?

Internal sponsor licence audits can help employers identify weaknesses before they become more serious compliance problems or are identified through Home Office scrutiny.

An effective audit should test more than whether the organisation has the required policies.

It should examine whether those policies operate in practice by reviewing actual sponsored worker records, SMS information, payroll, right to work evidence, reporting activity, HR processes and working arrangements.

Where problems are identified, the organisation should investigate their cause, take appropriate corrective action, document the remediation and re-test significant process changes.

The audit cycle can therefore be summarised as:

Review → identify → investigate → remediate → document → re-test

 

Back to top

 

Section P: Conclusion

 

Sponsor licence compliance is an ongoing organisational responsibility rather than an exercise that should begin only when the Home Office announces a compliance visit.

Employers need to be able to demonstrate that the systems supporting their sponsor licence operate effectively throughout the sponsorship lifecycle.

This requires more than maintaining immigration documents or keeping the Sponsor Management System updated in isolation.

Effective compliance depends on the interaction between:

Recruitment → HR → payroll → line management → immigration compliance → SMS

Information affecting a sponsored worker can originate anywhere within this chain. The organisation therefore needs processes capable of identifying relevant events and ensuring that they reach the people responsible for assessing the sponsor implications.

A comprehensive sponsor licence compliance review should test whether:

 

• responsibility for sponsor compliance is clearly allocated;
• key personnel and SMS users remain appropriate;
• SMS access and multi-factor authentication are properly managed;
• sponsored workers can be identified;
• Certificates of Sponsorship are appropriately controlled;
• sponsored roles remain genuine and correspond with actual employment;
• required sponsored worker records are maintained;
• right to work processes operate correctly;
• immigration expiry dates are monitored where required;
• attendance and absence are monitored;
• salary and payroll information correspond with sponsorship records;
• changes affecting sponsored workers are identified;
• required Home Office reports are made within the applicable timeframe;
• corporate changes are assessed for sponsor licence implications;
• relevant personnel understand their responsibilities;
• the organisation is prepared for Home Office compliance activity; and
• identified weaknesses are investigated, remediated and re-tested.

 

The strongest practical test is whether the organisation can select a sponsored worker and reconcile:

SMS records → personnel records → payroll → actual working arrangements → sponsor compliance activity

Those records should tell a consistent story.

The organisation should be able to explain why the worker was sponsored, what role they were sponsored to undertake, what work they actually perform, where they work, what they are paid, what immigration permission they hold and what action has been taken when relevant circumstances have changed.

Where inconsistencies are identified, they should be investigated rather than ignored or retrospectively disguised.

The objective of an internal compliance review is not simply to find mistakes. It is to determine whether the organisation has a functioning system capable of preventing, identifying and addressing sponsor compliance problems.

This creates a continuous improvement cycle:

Identify → investigate → assess → correct → document → improve → re-test

For employers that rely on sponsored workers, this should form part of normal workforce governance.

Ultimately, effective sponsor licence compliance depends on being able to demonstrate the connection between:

sponsor requirements → internal systems → employment activity → evidence

Where those elements remain aligned, the organisation is better placed to manage its sponsor licence effectively and respond confidently to Home Office scrutiny.

 

Back to top

 

Section Q: Glossary

 

Term	Meaning
Appendix D	Appendix D: Keeping Documents – Guidance for Sponsors is Home Office guidance setting out records that licensed sponsors are required to retain in relation to their sponsorship activities and sponsored workers. The applicable documents and retention requirements depend on the circumstances. Sponsors should use the current version of Appendix D when determining what evidence needs to be retained and for how long.
Authorising Officer	The Authorising Officer is the senior and competent person responsible for the actions of staff and representatives who use the Sponsor Management System and for overseeing the organisation’s sponsor licence arrangements. Being appointed as the Authorising Officer does not automatically give that individual access to the Sponsor Management System. Where SMS access is required, the individual must also hold the appropriate SMS user role.
Certificate of Sponsorship	A Certificate of Sponsorship, or CoS, is an electronic sponsorship record assigned by a licensed sponsor to an eligible worker for use in an immigration application under the relevant sponsored work route. The CoS contains information about the worker and proposed employment, including details relevant to the sponsored role. Sponsors should ensure that the information entered is accurate and that the worker’s subsequent employment remains consistent with the applicable sponsorship requirements.
Compliance Visit	A compliance visit is a Home Office check used to assess whether a sponsor is meeting its sponsor duties and whether the organisation’s systems, records and actual working practices support the information provided for sponsorship purposes. Compliance visits can be announced or unannounced. Home Office compliance activity can also include digital checks and remote interviews.
Genuine Vacancy	A genuine vacancy is a role that meets the applicable sponsorship requirements and genuinely exists within the sponsoring organisation. The Home Office can examine whether a sponsored role is genuine, whether it has been created or structured principally to facilitate immigration permission and whether the worker’s actual duties correspond with the role described for sponsorship purposes.
Home Office	The Home Office is the UK government department responsible for immigration and the administration and enforcement of the sponsor licensing system. UK Visas and Immigration operates as part of the Home Office and administers immigration applications and relevant sponsorship functions.
Key Contact	The Key Contact acts as a principal point of contact between the sponsor organisation and the Home Office in relation to the sponsor licence. Appointment as the Key Contact does not automatically provide access to the Sponsor Management System. If the Key Contact requires SMS access, they must separately hold an appropriate SMS user role.
Level 1 User	A Level 1 User is an authorised user of the Sponsor Management System with responsibility for carrying out permitted day-to-day sponsorship activities through the SMS. Depending on the applicable permissions and sponsor arrangements, Level 1 Users can carry out functions relating to Certificates of Sponsorship, sponsored workers, sponsor information and key personnel. Sponsors should ensure that they maintain appropriate active and eligible Level 1 User coverage and that user details remain current for SMS access and multi-factor authentication purposes.
Level 2 User	A Level 2 User is a legacy Sponsor Management System user role with more restricted permissions than a Level 1 User. From 9 September 2026, sponsors can no longer appoint new Level 2 Users. Existing Level 2 Users are being phased out and should be converted to Level 1 Users where eligible and appropriate, or deactivated. Under the current transitional arrangements, sponsors should complete the necessary action by 8 March 2027. Remaining Level 2 accounts are due to be deactivated as part of the phase-out.
Right to Work	Right to work refers to whether an individual is legally permitted to undertake work in the UK and to the checking regime through which employers can establish a statutory excuse against liability for employing a person who does not have the required permission to work. Right to work compliance and sponsor licence compliance overlap but are distinct. A sponsor should consider both the worker’s right to work and whether the sponsored employment complies with the applicable sponsorship requirements.
Sponsor Duties	Sponsor duties are the ongoing obligations imposed on organisations holding a sponsor licence. They include duties relating to record keeping, reporting, monitoring sponsored workers, maintaining appropriate systems, complying with immigration requirements, keeping sponsor information current and cooperating with Home Office compliance activity. The precise duties depend on the applicable sponsor route and current Home Office guidance.
Sponsor Management System	The Sponsor Management System, or SMS, is the Home Office online system used by licensed sponsors to administer their sponsor licence and carry out relevant sponsorship functions. These functions can include assigning Certificates of Sponsorship, reporting specified changes, maintaining relevant sponsor information and managing key personnel and users. Access should be appropriately controlled. Sponsors should also ensure that SMS users comply with current multi-factor authentication requirements and that required accounts remain active.
Sponsored Worker	A sponsored worker is an individual whose immigration permission is supported by a licensed sponsor through an applicable sponsored work route. The sponsor has ongoing responsibilities in relation to the worker and should ensure that the sponsored employment remains consistent with the applicable immigration and sponsorship requirements.
Sponsor Licence Compliance	Sponsor licence compliance refers to the systems, records, procedures and working practices through which a licensed sponsor meets its obligations under the sponsorship regime. Effective compliance extends beyond maintaining documents. The organisation should be capable of demonstrating that its sponsorship records correspond with its HR information, payroll data and actual employment arrangements.
Sponsor Licence Audit	A sponsor licence audit is a structured review of an organisation’s sponsor compliance arrangements. An audit can examine governance, key personnel, SMS information, sponsored worker records, right to work checks, Certificates of Sponsorship, reporting activity, HR systems, payroll, organisational changes and actual working arrangements. The purpose is to identify gaps, assess their significance and implement appropriate remediation before weaknesses develop into wider compliance problems.
SMS Reporting	SMS reporting refers to the use of the Sponsor Management System to notify the Home Office of specified changes and events where required under the sponsor guidance. Different reporting requirements and deadlines apply depending on the event. Many specified changes affecting sponsored workers are subject to a 10-working-day reporting period, while certain organisational and corporate changes can engage a 20-working-day reporting or application period. Sponsors should check the current rule applying to the particular event rather than relying on a single general reporting deadline.
UK Visas and Immigration	UK Visas and Immigration, commonly referred to as UKVI, is part of the Home Office and is responsible for administering immigration applications and relevant aspects of the UK’s sponsorship system.

 

Back to top

 

Section R: Useful Links & Resources

 

 

Resource	URL
Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors – Part 1: Apply for a Licence Part 1 of the sponsor guidance explains the sponsor licensing framework, including eligibility, suitability, key personnel and the requirements organisations need to meet when applying for and holding a sponsor licence.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/workers-and-temporary-workers-guidance-for-sponsors-part-1-apply-for-a-licence
Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors – Part 2: Sponsor a Worker Part 2 covers the sponsorship of individual workers and should be read alongside the route-specific guidance relevant to the worker being sponsored. It provides important guidance on matters including Certificates of Sponsorship and the sponsorship process.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/workers-and-temporary-workers-guidance-for-sponsors-part-2-sponsor-a-worker
Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors – Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance Part 3 is a core resource for sponsor licence holders. It addresses the ongoing duties that apply after a sponsor licence has been granted, including reporting, record keeping, compliance responsibilities and Home Office action where sponsor duties are not met. This should be treated as a primary reference when conducting a sponsor licence compliance audit.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/workers-and-temporary-workers-guidance-for-sponsors-part-3-sponsor-duties-and-compliance
Appendix D: Keeping Documents – Guidance for Sponsors Appendix D sets out the documents sponsors are required to retain in connection with sponsored workers and their sponsorship activities. Employers should refer to the current version when auditing personnel files, recruitment evidence and document-retention arrangements.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keep-records-for-sponsorship-appendix-d
Skilled Worker Sponsor Guidance Employers sponsoring workers under the Skilled Worker route should also refer to the route-specific Home Office sponsor guidance. This provides requirements relevant to Skilled Worker sponsorship, including eligible employment, salary, occupation requirements, genuine vacancies and the assignment of Certificates of Sponsorship.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/workers-and-temporary-workers-guidance-for-sponsors-sponsor-a-skilled-worker
Right to Work Checks: An Employer’s Guide The Home Office employer’s guide explains how organisations should conduct right to work checks and establish a statutory excuse against liability for a civil penalty where the applicable requirements are met. The guidance should be used when reviewing right to work procedures, online checks, manual checks, Identity Service Provider processes, Employer Checking Service verification and follow-up checking arrangements.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-to-work-checks-employers-guide
Sponsor Management System Guidance The Home Office publishes manuals and guidance explaining how sponsors and authorised users should operate the Sponsor Management System. These resources should be consulted when reviewing SMS administration, sponsor information, key personnel, user access, Certificates of Sponsorship and reporting activity.	https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sponsorship-management-system-sms-user-manual
UK Visa Sponsorship for Employers GOV.UK provides general information for employers on the sponsor licensing system, including applying for a licence, sponsorship responsibilities and managing the licence.	https://www.gov.uk/uk-visa-sponsorship-employers

 

The following official Home Office and GOV.UK resources provide the primary guidance relevant to sponsor licence compliance.

Sponsor guidance is updated periodically. Employers should ensure they are using the current version of the relevant guidance when conducting a sponsor licence compliance review or taking action in relation to a specific worker or event.

 

Back to top