Illegal Working & Sponsor Licence Compliance: Employer Guide

Illegal Working & Sponsor Licences: At a Glance

Illegal working can expose a sponsor licence holder to significantly wider consequences than the individual worker issue itself. Depending on the circumstances, an employer may face a civil penalty, criminal enforcement, Home Office investigation and separate action against its sponsor licence.

UKVI can use an illegal working incident to assess whether the organisation is meeting its sponsor duties and remains suitable to hold a sponsor licence. The enforcement outcome depends on the precise breach and the applicable Sponsor Guidance, with different grounds allowing discretionary revocation, normally resulting in revocation or requiring revocation.

Sponsor licence risk extends across the workforce. Illegal working involving a non-sponsored employee or another individual working for the organisation can expose weaknesses in right to work controls, recruitment, immigration monitoring and wider sponsor governance.

Employers also need to separate several related legal questions. A defective right to work check does not necessarily mean the individual was working illegally, while establishing a statutory excuse against an illegal working civil penalty does not resolve every sponsor compliance issue. Sponsors can also have a duty to ensure an appropriate right to work check has been carried out for a sponsored worker even where another organisation is the direct employer or engager.

From 1 October 2026, the statutory right to work regime also extends to specified working arrangements beyond conventional employment, including certain worker contracts, individual subcontractors and specified online matching-service arrangements.

Where a potential illegal working issue is identified, employers should establish the individual’s actual immigration and working status promptly, preserve the original evidence, determine whether work can lawfully continue and assess any civil penalty, criminal, reporting or sponsor licence exposure.

This guide explains how illegal working affects sponsor licence holders, how right to work and sponsor compliance interact, when non-sponsored workers can create licence risk, how suspension and revocation can arise and the steps employers should take when a potential breach is identified.

 

Section A: Illegal Working and Sponsor Licence Risk

 

Illegal working can engage several regulatory regimes at the same time. For a sponsor licence holder, the starting point is to establish exactly what has happened and then assess each area of exposure on its own legal basis.

The employer may need to determine:

 

1. whether the individual has permission to work in the UK;
2. whether that permission allows them to undertake the particular work they are doing;
3. whether an appropriate right to work check was carried out;
4. whether the employer has a statutory excuse against a civil penalty;
5. whether any sponsor duties have been breached;
6. whether a report is required through the Sponsor Management System;
7. whether the circumstances engage a discretionary, normally revocable or mandatory revocation ground;
8. whether the incident indicates wider weaknesses in the organisation’s compliance systems; and
9. whether Home Office action against the sponsor licence is likely.

 

The right to work and sponsorship regimes overlap but apply different legal tests. The right to work regime determines whether the individual can lawfully undertake the work, whether the prescribed checking process was followed and whether the employer has protection against civil penalty liability. Sponsor licence holders have additional obligations relating to workforce monitoring, record keeping, reporting and compliance with UK immigration law.

As a result, an employer can have a serious right to work compliance failure even where the individual had lawful permission to work. Equally, a worker may hold valid immigration permission but still be working outside the conditions attached to that permission or outside the basis on which they were sponsored.

The position can be particularly significant for sponsored workers. A Certificate of Sponsorship does not itself establish a right to work, and sponsors need to ensure that the worker’s actual duties and working arrangements remain consistent with their immigration permission and sponsorship. Material role mismatches, failures to monitor changes or missed reporting obligations can create separate sponsor enforcement exposure.

Illegal working elsewhere in the workforce can also affect the licence. Where a non-sponsored worker is found to be working illegally, UKVI may examine whether the same recruitment, onboarding, checking or monitoring failures affect sponsored workers and the organisation’s wider sponsor compliance framework.

The seriousness of the sponsor licence risk depends on the underlying facts. An administrative record failure involving a worker who had permission to work presents a different regulatory profile from continued employment of someone who lacked permission where the organisation knew, or could reasonably have been aware, of the problem. Previous civil penalties, repeated failures, sponsored role discrepancies and ineffective compliance systems can also materially increase the exposure.

Current Home Office guidance places different breaches within different enforcement categories. The employer therefore needs to identify the specific provision engaged before assessing whether UKVI has discretion over revocation, would normally revoke or is required to revoke the sponsor licence.

Current official requirements are set out in the Home Office Right to Work Checks: An Employer’s Guide, the Code of Practice on Preventing Illegal Working and Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors, Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section B: How Illegal Working Affects a Sponsor Licence

 

For an organisation that holds a sponsor licence, illegal working can create two related but separate areas of exposure.

The first is liability under the UK’s illegal working regime. Employers and other organisations within the scope of the statutory right to work regime are required to prevent illegal working by checking that individuals have permission to undertake the work in question and, where relevant, by following the prescribed checking requirements needed to establish a statutory excuse.

The second is the organisation’s position as a licensed sponsor. Sponsors are subject to additional Home Office duties and are expected to operate effective systems for monitoring immigration status, sponsored workers and compliance with the wider requirements of the sponsorship regime.

An illegal working incident can therefore become evidence of a wider sponsor compliance failure.

 

1. Illegal Working is a Sponsor Compliance Issue

 

The Home Office expects sponsors to comply with UK immigration law and to take appropriate steps to prevent illegal working.

Where an organisation employs, engages or sponsors someone who does not have permission to undertake the work they are doing, the Home Office may examine not only the circumstances of that individual worker but also the sponsor’s wider systems and practices.

This can include examining:

 

• how the individual was recruited or engaged;
• whether an appropriate right to work check was carried out;
• what evidence of the check was retained;
• whether the individual had time-limited permission requiring further verification;
• whether the person’s immigration conditions permitted the particular work;
• whether the worker was sponsored and, if so, whether their employment was consistent with their sponsorship;
• whether relevant changes were reported to the Home Office;
• whether similar problems affect other workers; and
• whether the sponsor has adequate systems for identifying and managing immigration compliance risks.

 

A single illegal working incident can therefore trigger scrutiny extending beyond the worker concerned.

 

2. The Home Office Response Depends on the Precise Breach

 

Not every illegal working or right to work failure produces the same sponsor licence consequence.

The Home Office sponsor guidance distinguishes between different categories of enforcement outcome. Depending on the particular breach, the Home Office may have discretion to revoke the licence, may normally revoke the licence or, for certain breaches, revocation may be mandatory.

This distinction is important because an employer cannot assess sponsor risk simply by asking whether an illegal worker has been identified.

The organisation needs to establish:

 

1. what actually happened;
2. whether the individual had permission to undertake the work;
3. whether the appropriate right to work requirements were followed;
4. whether the sponsor knew or could reasonably have been aware of the problem;
5. whether the individual was sponsored;
6. whether any sponsor duties were breached;
7. whether a civil penalty has been imposed;
8. whether there is a history of previous illegal working or sponsor compliance action; and
9. which specific Home Office enforcement provision applies.

 

Current Home Office sponsor guidance includes illegal working circumstances within its revocation framework. In particular, certain cases involving a sponsor employing or sponsoring a worker who lacks the relevant permission, combined with a failure to conduct the appropriate checks or circumstances in which the sponsor could reasonably have been aware of the issue, can fall within grounds where the Home Office will normally revoke the licence.

Separately, a first civil penalty for illegal working can fall within circumstances where the Home Office may revoke the sponsor licence, while repeated or more serious illegal working findings can create significantly greater revocation risk.

The legal significance of the incident therefore depends on the exact facts and the particular sponsor guidance provision engaged.

 

3. The Worker Does Not Have to be Sponsored

 

A potentially important point for sponsor licence holders is that sponsor compliance risk is not confined to illegal working by sponsored workers.

An organisation holding a sponsor licence remains subject to the wider rules on preventing illegal working across its workforce and, from 1 October 2026, within the additional categories of working arrangements brought within the statutory right to work regime.

If illegal working is identified elsewhere within the organisation, the Home Office may consider whether the circumstances indicate weaknesses in the organisation’s immigration compliance systems and whether those weaknesses are relevant to its continued suitability to hold a sponsor licence.

For example, repeated failures to carry out appropriate right to work checks across a workforce could raise broader concerns about the reliability of the systems on which the organisation also relies to manage sponsored workers.

The fact that an individual was not sponsored should therefore not automatically be treated as meaning that an illegal working incident is irrelevant to the sponsor licence.

 

4. Sponsored Workers Create Additional Compliance Duties

 

Where the individual is a sponsored worker, further issues arise.

Sponsorship does not, by itself, remove the need to establish that the individual has the right to undertake the work.

A Certificate of Sponsorship is not immigration permission, and the fact that an organisation sponsored an individual does not mean the employer can disregard the applicable right to work requirements.

Current Home Office sponsor guidance also requires sponsors to ensure that a right to work check is carried out for workers they sponsor even where the sponsor is not itself the direct employer or engager.

This is an important distinction.

There may be circumstances where the statutory excuse regime does not apply to the sponsor in the same way because it is not the direct employer, but the sponsor can still have a separate sponsorship duty to ensure that the sponsored worker’s right to work has been checked.

Potential problems can arise where, for example:

 

• the worker’s immigration permission has expired;
• an extension or change of permission has not been properly verified;
• the individual is carrying out work that their immigration permission does not allow;
• the role being performed materially differs from the role for which the individual was sponsored;
• changes affecting the worker have not been reported when required;
• the sponsor has failed to undertake, ensure or retain evidence of required checks; or
• the organisation has continued allowing the individual to work after becoming aware of information calling their right to work into question.

 

Some of these scenarios may involve illegal working. Others may instead amount to sponsor compliance or reporting failures without the worker necessarily being an illegal worker.

Establishing the precise facts is therefore essential before deciding what action is required.

 

5. Sponsored Role Mismatches Can be Particularly Serious

 

Sponsors must ensure that sponsored workers are undertaking work consistent with the role and sponsorship on which their immigration permission is based.

Not every change in duties will amount to illegal working or require a new immigration application. Roles can evolve and some changes are permissible within the sponsorship rules.

However, the position becomes significantly more serious where the worker is in a role that does not match the occupation code or job description on the Certificate of Sponsorship and the change is not permitted under the sponsor rules.

Current Home Office guidance identifies certain prohibited role mismatches as a mandatory ground for sponsor licence revocation.

This means that employers should not treat sponsored role changes as a purely internal HR matter.

Where duties, occupation code, job description, salary, work location or other material features of the sponsored employment change, the sponsor should assess the immigration and sponsorship consequences before assuming the change can proceed.

For detailed guidance on sponsor duties and the consequences of non-compliance, see our guide to sponsor duties and compliance.

 

6. Illegal Working Does Not Automatically Produce the Same Sponsor Outcome

 

Not every right to work or immigration compliance problem will result in sponsor licence suspension or revocation.

The Home Office’s response will depend on the nature and seriousness of the circumstances and the enforcement ground engaged.

Relevant considerations can include whether:

 

• the individual actually had permission to work;
• that permission allowed the work they were undertaking;
• the employer conducted the appropriate checks;
• the sponsor knew or could reasonably have been aware of the problem;
• a civil penalty has been imposed;
• there have been previous breaches or civil penalties;
• the individual was sponsored;
• a prohibited sponsored role mismatch exists; and
• the incident exposes wider failures in the sponsor’s compliance arrangements.

 

This distinction is particularly important where an administrative or record-keeping failure is discovered.

An employer that cannot produce the required evidence of a right to work check may have a serious compliance problem, but that does not necessarily mean that the individual had no lawful right to work.

Conversely, the existence of paperwork does not necessarily resolve the issue if the individual’s immigration permission did not allow them to undertake the work they were actually performing.

The underlying immigration status, the right to undertake the particular work, the employer’s compliance with the statutory checking regime and the sponsor’s compliance with its sponsorship duties therefore need to be considered separately.

 

7. Illegal Working Can Expose Wider Systemic Failures

 

The sponsor licence risk can increase where an individual case reveals that the organisation’s compliance systems are ineffective.

For example, the Home Office may be concerned where an illegal working incident exposes:

 

• no reliable system for monitoring visa expiry dates;
• inconsistent right to work procedures between sites or departments;
• inadequate controls over recruitment and onboarding;
• failure to conduct follow-up checks where required;
• poor record keeping;
• insufficient oversight by sponsor licence key personnel;
• inadequate monitoring of sponsored workers;
• failures to report relevant changes;
• weak controls over workers, subcontractors or other non-standard working arrangements; or
• previous compliance problems that have not been remedied.

 

This is why an employer discovering one potential illegal worker should generally consider whether the problem is genuinely isolated.

An internal review may identify a wider population of workers, records or processes requiring attention before the Home Office does so.

Current Home Office sponsor compliance guidance should be checked against the facts of the case because the consequences differ materially depending on whether the relevant ground is discretionary, one where the Home Office will normally revoke, or a mandatory revocation ground. See Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors, Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section C: What Counts as Illegal Working for Sponsor Compliance?

 

Illegal working is not limited to someone who entered the UK unlawfully or who has no immigration status.

A person can be lawfully present in the UK but still be working illegally if their immigration status does not permit the work they are undertaking.

For sponsor licence holders, this distinction is particularly important because immigration permission can contain conditions affecting the type of work, employer, role or amount of work an individual is permitted to undertake.

 

1. Working Without Permission

 

The clearest example is an individual who does not have permission to work in the UK.

This could include someone who requires immigration permission to work but does not hold it, or whose permission has expired without another legal basis allowing them to continue working.

Where an employer identifies that a worker may no longer have permission, it should establish the individual’s current immigration position rather than relying solely on previously supplied documents or assumptions about an outstanding application.

This distinction is particularly important for sponsors because continuing to employ or sponsor a worker who does not have the relevant permission can engage serious sponsor enforcement consequences, particularly where the appropriate right to work checks were not undertaken or the sponsor knew or could reasonably have been aware that the worker did not have permission to undertake the work.

 

2. Working in Breach of Immigration Conditions

 

Illegal working can also arise where an individual has immigration permission but undertakes work that is prohibited by, or falls outside the restrictions attached to, that permission.

The relevant question is therefore not simply:

“Does this person have a visa?”

The employer needs to establish:

“Does this person’s current immigration status permit them to undertake this particular work?”

This can be especially relevant where an individual’s permission restricts the work they can undertake or imposes conditions on their employment.

For sponsored workers, the analysis also needs to take account of the conditions attached to the sponsored route and whether the employment remains consistent with the sponsorship on which the worker’s immigration permission is based.

 

3. Expired Immigration Permission

 

Visa expiry is a significant compliance risk for employers.

Where an employee has time-limited permission, the employer needs appropriate systems to identify when further action or verification may be required.

However, reaching the expiry date shown on an earlier grant of immigration permission does not necessarily mean that the individual immediately becomes an illegal worker.

There are circumstances in which an individual’s existing immigration permission may continue while an in-time immigration application, administrative review or appeal is pending. Whether the person retains the right to undertake the particular work will depend on their circumstances.

Employers should therefore establish the individual’s actual legal position and use the prescribed Home Office checking process, including the Employer Checking Service where applicable, rather than assuming that an expired document necessarily means that the person has lost their right to work.

This distinction matters in both directions.

Prematurely treating a worker as having no right to work can create separate employment law risks, while allowing someone to continue working without properly establishing their status can expose the organisation to illegal working enforcement and sponsor compliance action.

 

4. Sponsored Workers Undertaking Unauthorised Work

 

Sponsored workers require particular attention because their immigration permission is connected to the basis on which they were sponsored.

A sponsor should monitor whether the worker continues to undertake employment permitted by their immigration status and whether changes to their role or circumstances require action under the sponsorship regime.

Where a sponsored worker is performing duties or employment that are not permitted under their immigration conditions, the organisation needs to establish whether this amounts to illegal working, a breach of sponsor duties, a requirement for further immigration permission or a combination of these issues.

Not every variation in an employee’s duties will amount to illegal working or require a new immigration application. Roles can develop and certain changes can be accommodated within the sponsorship rules.

However, sponsors should not assume that they have unrestricted discretion to move sponsored workers between roles simply because the organisation remains the same employer.

 

5. Sponsored Role Mismatches & Revocation Risk

 

A particularly serious issue can arise where the work actually being performed by a sponsored worker does not correspond with the role for which they were sponsored.

The Home Office can compare the worker’s actual duties with information recorded on the Certificate of Sponsorship, including the occupation code and job description.

Where a sponsored worker is working in a role that does not match the occupation code or job description stated on the Certificate of Sponsorship, and the change is not permitted under the sponsorship rules, current Home Office guidance provides for mandatory revocation in specified circumstances.

This means a material role mismatch should not be treated simply as a technical reporting error.

Potential warning signs can include:

 

• a worker being permanently moved into a substantially different role;
• duties materially changing from those stated when sponsorship was granted;
• the employee effectively working in a different occupation;
• internal promotion or restructuring changing the substance of the sponsored role;
• the worker being deployed primarily to duties inconsistent with the sponsored position; or
• the organisation’s records describing one role while the worker is actually performing another.

 

The legal effect of a role change depends on the particular circumstances and the sponsorship rules applicable to the worker. Sponsors should therefore assess material changes before implementing them rather than attempting to resolve the immigration consequences retrospectively.

 

6. Additional Work & Secondary Employment

 

Some sponsored workers may be permitted to undertake additional work subject to the conditions of their immigration permission.

The fact that a worker is sponsored does not give them an unrestricted right to work for any employer, in any role or for any number of hours.

Where a sponsor becomes aware that a sponsored worker is undertaking other employment, the relevant immigration conditions should be checked to determine whether that work is permitted.

This can become particularly important where the sponsor itself is offering the worker additional duties or work outside the sponsored role.

The organisation should not assume that because the worker is lawfully sponsored for one role, any additional work is automatically permitted.

 

7. Illegal Working Involving Non-Sponsored Workers

 

Illegal working involving a non-sponsored member of the workforce should not be dismissed as unrelated to sponsorship compliance.

The Home Office may consider the circumstances when assessing whether the organisation has effective systems for preventing illegal working and whether it remains suitable to hold a sponsor licence.

For example, discovering several non-sponsored workers without appropriate right to work evidence may suggest that the organisation’s recruitment or immigration compliance controls are ineffective.

That finding may then cause the Home Office to examine how those same controls are being applied to sponsored workers.

The relevant distinction is therefore not simply between sponsored and non-sponsored workers. The Home Office may be concerned with whether the organisation as a whole is operating the systems expected of a licensed sponsor.

 

8. Right to Work Duties From 1 October 2026

 

Employers should also be aware that the statutory right to work regime changed from 1 October 2026.

The checking requirements were extended beyond conventional employment to specified additional working arrangements. These include certain individuals engaged under worker contracts, individual subcontractors and specified arrangements involving online matching services. The extended regime applies to relevant working arrangements commencing on or after 1 October 2026 and where a repeat right to work check on an existing worker is required on or after that date.

This means organisations should not assume that illegal working risk is confined to individuals engaged under conventional contracts of employment.

The precise scope of the extended regime depends on the nature of the working arrangement and should be assessed against the current Home Office guidance.

For sponsor licence holders, this development is particularly relevant where the organisation uses a mixed workforce comprising employees, workers, contractors, subcontractors or other contingent labour.

The organisation should ensure that responsibility for right to work compliance is clearly allocated and that individuals do not fall between different recruitment, procurement or HR processes simply because they are not treated internally as conventional employees.

See the current Home Office Right to Work Checks: An Employer’s Guide and Code of Practice on Preventing Illegal Working for the detailed requirements.

 

9. Sponsor Duties Can Apply Where the Sponsor is Not the Direct Employer

 

The distinction between right to work law and sponsor compliance becomes particularly important where the sponsor is not the direct employer or engager of the sponsored worker.

Current Home Office sponsor guidance requires a sponsor to carry out, or ensure that the appropriate right to work check is carried out, for a worker it sponsors regardless of the nature of the employment relationship.

This means that the absence of a conventional employer-employee relationship does not necessarily remove the sponsor’s compliance responsibility.

It also illustrates why the statutory excuse and sponsor compliance regimes should not be conflated.

An organisation may be in circumstances where it does not need to establish a statutory excuse in the same way as the direct employer, but still has a sponsor duty to ensure that the sponsored worker’s right to work has been appropriately checked.

Failure to recognise this distinction can leave a sponsor exposed even where it assumed that another organisation was responsible for the worker’s right to work compliance.

 

10. Right to Work Failure Does Not Always Mean Illegal Working

 

It is important to distinguish an illegal worker from a right to work compliance failure.

An individual may have full legal permission to undertake the work but the employer may have failed to carry out or retain evidence of the prescribed check.

That can leave the employer without the protection it would otherwise have had under the statutory excuse regime and may raise serious sponsor compliance concerns, but it does not retrospectively remove the individual’s underlying immigration permission.

Likewise, a deficient personnel file does not by itself establish that the individual has been working illegally.

Conversely, a correctly completed historic check does not give an employer permission to ignore subsequent information that establishes or reasonably indicates that the individual is no longer permitted to undertake the work.

The employer should therefore establish separately:

 

1. the individual’s immigration status;
2. whether that status permitted the work undertaken;
3. whether the prescribed right to work process was followed;
4. whether the required evidence was retained;
5. whether the employer has a statutory excuse;
6. whether any separate sponsor duties were breached; and
7. whether the facts engage any sponsor enforcement ground.

 

Keeping these questions distinct is essential when assessing the seriousness of an incident and deciding how the organisation should respond.

For further guidance on the checking process itself, see our guide to right to work checks. Current official requirements are set out in the Home Office Right to Work Checks: An Employer’s Guide.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section D: Sponsor Duties to Prevent Illegal Working

 

Sponsor licence holders are expected to operate effective systems for managing immigration compliance. Preventing illegal working forms an important part of that wider compliance framework.

Right to work compliance and sponsor compliance are closely connected, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.

The right to work regime establishes the checks employers and other organisations within scope should undertake to determine whether an individual is permitted to undertake the work in question and, where the prescribed requirements are satisfied, to establish a statutory excuse against civil penalty liability.

The sponsorship regime imposes additional duties on organisations that have been granted permission to sponsor overseas workers.

A licensed sponsor therefore needs systems capable of satisfying both regimes.

 

1. Right to Work Checks Before Employment

 

Employers should establish a person’s right to work before employment begins using the appropriate Home Office-prescribed process.

Depending on the individual’s circumstances, this may involve an online right to work check, an eligible document-based check or use of the Employer Checking Service.

The purpose is not simply to establish that the individual is lawfully present in the UK.

The employer needs to determine whether the person is permitted to undertake the work being offered and whether their right to work is permanent or subject to restrictions or time limits.

For sponsors, weaknesses at this initial stage can have consequences later. If the organisation cannot demonstrate that appropriate checks were carried out, the Home Office may question the effectiveness of the sponsor’s wider immigration compliance systems.

Detailed requirements for conducting checks should be dealt with through the employer’s right to work procedures and the current Home Office guidance rather than treating sponsorship as a substitute for the prescribed checking process.

 

2. Sponsorship is Not a Substitute for a Right to Work Check

 

A common compliance error is to assume that assigning a Certificate of Sponsorship or successfully sponsoring a worker removes the need to establish their right to work.

It does not.

Sponsorship and the right to work are related but distinct.

A Certificate of Sponsorship is an electronic sponsorship record. It is not itself immigration permission and does not, on its own, establish that the individual currently has the right to undertake the sponsored employment.

The sponsor should be able to establish the worker’s immigration status and that the permission held allows the work in question.

 

3. Sponsors Must Check Sponsored Workers Even Where They Are Not the Direct Employer

 

An important sponsor-specific rule applies where the organisation sponsors a worker but is not itself the worker’s direct employer or engager.

Current Home Office sponsor guidance requires sponsors to carry out, or ensure that the appropriate right to work check is carried out, for any worker they sponsor, regardless of the nature of the employment relationship.

This means a sponsor cannot necessarily avoid responsibility by assuming that another organisation in the working arrangement has dealt with the individual’s immigration status.

The sponsor should have a reliable process for ensuring that the check has been undertaken and that appropriate evidence is available.

This requirement is also important when distinguishing the statutory excuse from sponsor compliance. The statutory excuse concerns protection against civil penalty liability under the illegal working regime. The sponsor’s duty to ensure that its sponsored worker has been appropriately checked can exist independently of whether the sponsor itself needs a statutory excuse as the direct employer.

For sponsors operating unusual employment, engagement or contractual structures, responsibility for immigration checking should therefore be identified expressly rather than assumed.

 

4. Monitoring Time-Limited Permission

 

Where a worker has a time-limited right to work, the employer needs systems capable of identifying when further action may be required.

This is particularly important for sponsor licence holders because failures in immigration monitoring can indicate weaknesses in the organisation’s wider sponsorship controls.

An effective system should allow the organisation to identify relevant immigration expiry dates in sufficient time to establish whether the worker has obtained further permission, made an application that affects their continuing right to work or requires another prescribed check.

Simply recording an expiry date in a spreadsheet or HR system is unlikely to provide an effective control if nobody is responsible for acting on it.

The practical issue for sponsors is whether the system works.

The Home Office may therefore be interested in matters such as:

 

• who records immigration expiry dates;
• who monitors them;
• what reminders or escalation procedures operate;
• how follow-up checks are triggered;
• what happens if an employee does not provide the required evidence;
• how pending immigration applications are handled;
• when the Employer Checking Service is used; and
• how evidence of subsequent checks is retained.

 

5. Monitoring Sponsored Workers

 

Sponsored workers create additional monitoring responsibilities.

Sponsors should have processes for identifying relevant changes in a worker’s employment and circumstances and determining whether those changes require action under the sponsorship regime.

This can include monitoring matters such as attendance, changes in role or duties, work location, salary, cessation of employment and other circumstances that may engage sponsor reporting or immigration requirements.

These controls can also help identify situations in which a worker may no longer be working in accordance with the conditions of their immigration permission.

The organisation should not rely entirely on the sponsored employee to identify immigration compliance problems.

Managers, HR teams and sponsor licence key personnel need clear processes for escalating changes that could affect sponsorship or the individual’s permission to work.

 

6. Sponsored Role Changes Require Immigration Oversight

 

Changes to a sponsored worker’s role should be subject to immigration compliance review before they are implemented where the change could affect the basis of sponsorship.

This is particularly important because a material mismatch between the work actually being undertaken and the occupation code or job description recorded on the Certificate of Sponsorship can have serious sponsor licence consequences.

Where the mismatch falls within the circumstances specified in the current sponsor guidance and the change is not permitted under the sponsorship rules, mandatory revocation can apply.

Sponsors should therefore have a process requiring relevant role changes to be escalated before operational managers implement them.

Potential triggers can include:

 

• promotion;
• substantial changes in duties;
• restructuring of a sponsored role;
• transfer between materially different functions;
• changes affecting occupation coding;
• significant changes to salary;
• changes in work location; or
• other changes capable of affecting the basis on which sponsorship was granted.

 

Not every change will require the same immigration action, but the assessment should take place before the organisation assumes that the worker can simply continue under the existing sponsorship arrangements.

 

7. Keeping Evidence

 

Record keeping is central to both right to work and sponsor compliance.

A sponsor should be able to demonstrate what checks were undertaken, when they were undertaken and what evidence was obtained.

Where the Home Office investigates an allegation of illegal working, contemporaneous records can become particularly important.

The organisation may need to establish:

 

• the immigration status relied on when employment or engagement commenced;
• the right to work check that was undertaken;
• the date of the check;
• the evidence retained;
• any restrictions identified;
• subsequent checks undertaken;
• communications with the worker;
• any Employer Checking Service verification obtained;
• action taken when an issue arose; and
• relevant sponsor reporting or compliance action.

 

Missing or inconsistent records can make it considerably harder for the sponsor to demonstrate that appropriate systems were operating.

Sponsors should also ensure their record-keeping practices comply with the applicable requirements in the Home Office’s sponsor guidance and Appendix D.

 

8. Reporting Relevant Changes

 

Illegal working concerns can also intersect with sponsor reporting duties.

Where circumstances involving a sponsored worker change, the sponsor should determine whether a report through the Sponsor Management System is required and within what timeframe.

Not every right to work issue automatically creates the same reporting obligation. The correct response depends on what has happened.

For example, the organisation may need to distinguish between an administrative discrepancy that can be resolved, a change in a sponsored worker’s circumstances, a material change to the sponsored employment, cessation of sponsorship and evidence that the person is no longer permitted to undertake the work.

The underlying facts should therefore be established promptly so that any required sponsor action is taken within the applicable timeframe.

 

9. Compliance Must Work Across the Organisation

 

Sponsor compliance systems can fail where responsibility is concentrated in a small immigration or HR team but operational decisions are being made elsewhere.

Line managers may change duties, move employees between locations, approve additional work or become aware of absences without recognising the immigration implications.

Recruitment teams may onboard workers without completing the correct checking process.

Procurement teams may engage contractors or subcontractors without recognising that right to work requirements apply to the particular arrangement.

Different branches or business units may operate inconsistent procedures.

Acquired employees may enter the workforce without being properly integrated into existing immigration controls.

For larger sponsors in particular, the question is not simply whether a written policy exists.

The organisation needs to be able to show that its procedures operate consistently in practice.

An illegal working incident can be especially damaging where it demonstrates a gap between the sponsor’s documented compliance procedures and what actually happens within the business.

For further information on sponsor compliance requirements, see the Home Office Sponsor Guidance Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section E: Statutory Excuse vs Sponsor Compliance

 

One of the most important distinctions for sponsor licence holders is the difference between establishing a statutory excuse against a civil penalty for illegal working and demonstrating compliance with sponsor licence duties.

They are related issues, but they are not the same legal question.

This distinction matters because an employer can otherwise assume that establishing a statutory excuse automatically resolves any sponsor licence risk arising from the circumstances.

That assumption can be unsafe.

 

1. What is a Statutory Excuse?

 

The statutory excuse is part of the civil penalty regime for illegal working.

Broadly, an employer that has carried out the prescribed right to work check correctly and at the required time may establish a statutory excuse against liability for a civil penalty if the individual is subsequently found to have been working illegally.

Where an individual has an ongoing right to work, the appropriate check can provide continuing protection in relation to that employment.

Where the individual’s permission is time-limited, further action may be required to maintain the statutory excuse.

The precise checking requirements depend on the individual’s circumstances and the applicable Home Office right to work guidance.

 

2. A Statutory Excuse Does Not Create a Right to Work

 

The statutory excuse concerns the employer’s exposure to a civil penalty.

It should not be confused with the worker’s underlying immigration status.

An individual either has permission to undertake the work in question or they do not. The employer’s statutory excuse does not create immigration permission for the worker.

This distinction becomes important where an employer has conducted a prescribed check but circumstances later change or information emerges suggesting that the worker is no longer entitled to undertake the work.

The organisation should not assume that an earlier check means subsequent information can be ignored.

 

3. Sponsor Compliance Asks Wider Questions

 

When considering the sponsor licence, the Home Office can be concerned with issues extending beyond whether the employer has a statutory excuse to a civil penalty.

The sponsor compliance assessment may examine whether the organisation has:

 

• complied with its sponsor duties;
• maintained appropriate records;
• monitored sponsored workers effectively;
• made required reports;
• complied with UK immigration law;
• responded appropriately to changes in workers’ circumstances;
• maintained effective HR systems;
• ensured sponsored workers have been subject to appropriate right to work checks;
• exercised appropriate oversight through its key personnel; and
• remained suitable to hold a sponsor licence.

 

The existence of a statutory excuse may therefore be highly relevant evidence, but it should not automatically be treated as answering every sponsor compliance question.

 

4. A Sponsor May Have a Duty Even Where It Does Not Need the Statutory Excuse

 

This distinction is particularly clear where a sponsor is not the direct employer or engager of the worker it sponsors.

The Home Office sponsor guidance requires the sponsor to carry out, or ensure that the appropriate right to work check is carried out, for a worker it sponsors regardless of the nature of the employment relationship.

As a result, the following two propositions can exist at the same time:

 

• the sponsor may not be the employer seeking to establish a statutory excuse against a civil penalty; but
• the organisation can still have a sponsor duty to ensure that the sponsored worker’s right to work has been checked.

 

This provides a practical example of why the two compliance regimes cannot be treated as interchangeable.

A sponsor should therefore identify its own sponsorship responsibilities rather than assuming that compliance by the direct employer necessarily discharges every obligation arising from the sponsor licence.

 

5. Why the Distinction Matters in Practice

 

Consider an employer that discovers a problem involving a worker’s immigration status.

The first question may be whether the employer conducted the appropriate right to work check and therefore has protection against civil penalty liability.

For a sponsor licence holder, the analysis should not stop there.

The organisation may also need to ask whether:

 

• the worker was sponsored;
• their work remained consistent with their immigration conditions;
• the actual role remained consistent with the sponsorship;
• a relevant change should have been identified earlier;
• sponsor records were maintained correctly;
• a report should have been made;
• the sponsor’s monitoring systems operated as required;
• the sponsor complied with its own right to work obligations in relation to the sponsored worker; and
• the incident indicates a wider compliance weakness.

 

The answers to those questions may produce a different risk profile from the civil penalty analysis alone.

 

6. No Statutory Excuse Does Not Automatically Prove Illegal Working

 

The distinction also works in the opposite direction.

An employer may be unable to establish a statutory excuse because the prescribed right to work check was not carried out correctly, even though the individual did in fact have lawful permission to undertake the work throughout their employment.

This can still be a serious compliance failure, particularly for a licensed sponsor, but it is important to characterise the failure correctly.

The employer should distinguish between:

Immigration status: Did the individual actually have permission to undertake the work?

Right to work compliance: Did the employer conduct and retain evidence of the prescribed check?

Statutory excuse: Does the employer have the prescribed protection against civil penalty liability?

Sponsor compliance: Did the organisation comply with the additional duties arising from its sponsor licence?

A weakness in one area does not necessarily establish a breach in all four.

 

7. The Home Office May Look Beyond the Individual Incident

 

Where a sponsor cannot demonstrate an appropriate right to work check, the Home Office may investigate whether the problem is isolated or symptomatic of wider failures.

This can result in scrutiny of other personnel files and sponsored workers.

For example, if one worker’s file contains no evidence of an appropriate check, the Home Office may want to understand:

 

• whether other worker files contain the same deficiency;
• whether checks are conducted consistently;
• who is responsible for conducting them;
• whether staff carrying out checks have been trained;
• whether follow-up checks are monitored;
• whether immigration restrictions are identified correctly;
• whether sponsored workers have been checked appropriately; and
• whether senior personnel exercise adequate oversight.

 

A single defective check can therefore become the starting point for a much wider sponsor compliance investigation.

 

8. Sponsors Should Assess Both Regimes Separately

 

When an illegal working concern arises, the organisation should conduct two connected but distinct assessments.

The first considers the illegal working position:

 

• Did the individual have the right to undertake the work?
• Was the prescribed right to work check conducted?
• Is there a statutory excuse?
• Is there potential civil penalty exposure?
• Is there potential criminal exposure?

 

The second considers the sponsor licence position:

 

• Was the individual sponsored?
• Were sponsor duties complied with?
• Were the required records maintained?
• Were relevant changes identified and reported?
• Was the worker performing the role for which they were sponsored?
• Does the incident reveal a weakness in the sponsor’s systems?
• Does a discretionary, will normally revoke or mandatory revocation ground apply?
• Could the circumstances trigger other Home Office action against the licence?

 

This separation helps prevent an employer from treating the absence of a civil penalty as confirmation that there is no sponsor licence problem, or treating a defective right to work check as proof that the worker was necessarily working illegally.

For licensed sponsors, civil penalty protection and sponsor compliance should therefore be assessed alongside each other, but not conflated.

Detailed requirements for establishing a statutory excuse are set out in the Home Office Right to Work Checks: An Employer’s Guide and Code of Practice on Preventing Illegal Working.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section F: What Happens if the Home Office Finds an Illegal Worker?

 

Where the Home Office identifies suspected illegal working within an organisation that holds a sponsor licence, the consequences can extend beyond the individual worker and beyond the civil penalty regime.

The Home Office may consider whether the circumstances indicate that the organisation has failed to prevent illegal working, breached its sponsor duties or demonstrated wider weaknesses that call into question its suitability to continue holding a sponsor licence.

The precise response will depend on the facts and on the particular enforcement provisions engaged.

 

1. How Illegal Working May Come to the Home Office’s Attention

 

An illegal working concern can arise in a number of ways.

It may be identified through:

 

• a Home Office sponsor compliance visit;
• an illegal working enforcement operation;
• information obtained from another government department or public authority;
• intelligence or information provided to the Home Office;
• information provided by a current or former worker;
• an examination of the sponsor’s records;
• a sponsor licence application or other interaction with the sponsorship system;
• information identified through immigration casework; or
• another Home Office investigation involving the organisation or worker.

 

Once a concern has been identified, the Home Office may examine both the individual’s immigration position and the employer’s wider compliance arrangements.

 

2. The Home Office May Examine the Worker’s Actual Immigration Position

 

The first issue is whether the individual was legally permitted to undertake the work in question.

This can require consideration of more than whether the individual held some form of immigration permission.

The Home Office may consider:

 

• whether the person had current immigration permission;
• whether that permission included a right to work;
• whether the particular work was permitted;
• whether any restrictions on the person’s work were being observed;
• whether an outstanding immigration application or other process affected their continuing right to work; and
• where the individual was sponsored, whether the work was consistent with the conditions and basis of their sponsorship.

 

This is why employers should avoid treating every immigration discrepancy as identical. A missing document, a defective right to work check and an individual who genuinely has no permission to undertake the work raise different legal issues.

 

3. The Home Office May Examine the Employer’s Right to Work Records

 

If illegal working is suspected, the employer may be required to demonstrate what steps it took to establish the individual’s right to work.

The Home Office may examine:

 

• when the worker started work;
• what right to work check was carried out;
• when the check took place;
• what evidence was obtained and retained;
• whether restrictions on the person’s work were identified;
• whether follow-up verification was required;
• whether any required follow-up check took place;
• whether the Employer Checking Service should have been used;
• whether the organisation had a statutory excuse; and
• what the organisation knew about the worker’s immigration position.

 

Where the employer cannot establish the applicable statutory excuse and the requirements for civil penalty liability are met, the organisation may face a civil penalty for illegal working.

The maximum civil penalty is currently £60,000 per illegal worker, making illegal working potentially significant even before the sponsor licence consequences are considered.

 

4. Criminal Liability May Also Arise

 

Serious cases of illegal working can also result in criminal enforcement.

The criminal regime is distinct from the civil penalty regime and applies where the relevant criminal threshold is met.

Current Home Office guidance warns that knowingly employing an illegal worker, or employing someone where the employer has reasonable cause to believe that the individual is disqualified from employment by reason of their immigration status, can result in criminal prosecution.

The offence can carry an unlimited fine and imprisonment for up to five years.

Potential criminal liability significantly changes the risk profile of an incident and should be treated separately from the question of whether the organisation has a statutory excuse against a civil penalty.

 

5. An Individual Case Can Become a Wider Investigation

 

The Home Office does not necessarily have to confine its investigation to the worker who triggered the concern.

Where one case reveals an apparent weakness in the employer’s systems, the Home Office may examine other workers and records to determine whether the problem is isolated or systemic.

For example, if an employer failed to conduct a required follow-up check for one worker, the Home Office may want to establish whether other workers with time-limited permission were managed in the same way.

Similarly, where a sponsored worker is found to be performing a role inconsistent with their sponsorship, the Home Office may examine whether other sponsored roles correspond with the information provided through the sponsorship system.

This can turn an apparently isolated worker issue into a wider sponsor compliance investigation.

 

6. The Sponsor Licence May Come Under Review

 

For a licensed sponsor, the Home Office may consider whether the illegal working incident engages grounds for action against the sponsor licence.

The possible outcome depends on the particular facts and the applicable sponsor guidance.

Home Office action can potentially include:

 

• further investigation or requests for information;
• a sponsor compliance visit;
• compliance action requiring weaknesses to be addressed;
• downgrading of the sponsor licence where the applicable rules allow;
• suspension of the sponsor licence;
• revocation of the sponsor licence; and
• separate illegal working enforcement, including a civil penalty or criminal investigation where applicable.

 

The sponsor guidance distinguishes between circumstances where revocation is discretionary, circumstances where the Home Office will normally revoke and circumstances in which revocation is mandatory.

The employer therefore needs to identify the precise enforcement ground rather than assuming that every illegal working incident carries the same licence consequence.

 

7. Some Illegal Working Breaches Carry a Particularly High Revocation Risk

 

Current Home Office sponsor guidance treats certain illegal working circumstances particularly seriously.

Where a sponsor employs or sponsors a worker who is subject to immigration control but does not have the relevant permission to undertake the work, and the sponsor failed to carry out the appropriate right to work check or could reasonably have been aware that the worker did not have the required permission, the circumstances can fall within grounds where the Home Office will normally revoke the sponsor licence.

The position can also become more serious where the organisation has received previous civil penalties, repeated breaches have occurred or the facts indicate deliberate or knowing non-compliance.

In other circumstances, including specified civil penalty scenarios, the Home Office may have discretion to revoke.

Employers should therefore avoid describing sponsor revocation simply as an automatic consequence of every illegal working incident, while equally avoiding the assumption that revocation is merely a remote possibility.

In some circumstances, current sponsor guidance places the case firmly within the Home Office’s revocation framework.

 

8. The Employer’s Response Can Become Part of the Compliance Picture

 

Once an organisation becomes aware of a potential illegal working issue, its subsequent conduct can become relevant.

The employer should establish the facts promptly and take appropriate action.

Continuing to allow an individual to work without investigating credible information about their immigration position can materially worsen the organisation’s position.

Equally, employers should avoid taking poorly informed action based solely on assumptions about immigration status.

Relevant evidence should be preserved, including:

 

• right to work records;
• online check results;
• copies of relevant documents;
• Employer Checking Service responses;
• Certificate of Sponsorship information;
• employment records;
• job descriptions;
• records of changes to duties;
• communications with the worker;
• internal escalation records; and
• any relevant Sponsor Management System reports.

 

Records should not be retrospectively created or altered in an attempt to give the appearance that a check or compliance action took place when it did not.

Where deficiencies are identified, the organisation should distinguish clearly between contemporaneous evidence and subsequent remedial action.

 

9. Remediation Should Address the Cause of the Failure

 

Removing or resolving the immediate worker issue does not necessarily resolve the sponsor compliance problem.

If the incident resulted from a weakness in the organisation’s systems, the sponsor should identify and correct that weakness.

This may require:

 

• reviewing other right to work files;
• checking workers with time-limited immigration permission;
• reviewing sponsored worker records;
• auditing sponsored roles against Certificates of Sponsorship;
• correcting escalation procedures;
• retraining relevant personnel;
• improving expiry-date monitoring;
• reviewing Sponsor Management System reporting processes;
• clarifying responsibility between HR, recruitment, procurement and operational managers; and
• conducting a wider sponsor compliance audit.

 

The objective should be to demonstrate that the organisation understands why the problem occurred and has taken credible steps to prevent recurrence.

For further guidance on the wider enforcement regime, see our guide to civil penalties for illegal working.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section G: Can Illegal Working Lead to Sponsor Licence Suspension?

 

Yes. Illegal working can result in sponsor licence suspension where the Home Office considers that there are grounds to investigate the sponsor’s compliance or suitability to continue holding the licence.

However, suspension is not an automatic consequence of every illegal working incident.

The appropriate Home Office response depends on the particular facts, the seriousness of the alleged breach and the enforcement provisions engaged.

In some cases the relevant sponsor guidance may point directly towards revocation rather than suspension. In others, the Home Office may suspend the licence while concerns are investigated and the sponsor is given an opportunity to respond.

 

1. Why the Home Office May Suspend a Sponsor Licence

 

Suspension allows the Home Office to restrict the sponsor’s ability to use its licence while concerns about compliance are considered.

An illegal working incident may contribute to suspension where it raises questions about matters such as:

 

• the sponsor’s right to work systems;
• the employment of workers without appropriate immigration permission;
• failure to monitor time-limited permission;
• failure to monitor sponsored workers;
• unauthorised changes to sponsored roles;
• failures to make required sponsor reports;
• inadequate record keeping;
• repeated compliance failures;
• weaknesses in the sponsor’s HR systems; or
• the sponsor’s overall suitability to continue holding a licence.

 

The Home Office may also consider whether the organisation knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, about the problem.

 

2. Suspension is Not the Same as Revocation

 

A sponsor licence suspension is serious, but it is not the same as revocation.

During suspension, the licence continues to exist but the organisation’s ability to use it is restricted while the Home Office considers the case.

The suspension process can result in different outcomes depending on the findings and the sponsor’s response.

These can include:

 

• the licence being reinstated;
• the licence being reinstated subject to compliance action where permitted;
• the sponsor being downgraded where the applicable rules allow;
• further investigation; or
• revocation of the sponsor licence.

 

The existence of a suspension should therefore be treated as an urgent regulatory issue rather than simply an administrative interruption to the licence.

 

3. The Home Office Will Set Out its Concerns

 

Where the Home Office suspends a sponsor licence, it will normally notify the organisation of the concerns giving rise to the action.

The sponsor’s response needs to address the allegations and evidence carefully.

In an illegal working case, this may require the organisation to establish:

 

• the worker’s actual immigration status;
• whether they were permitted to undertake the work;
• what right to work checks were conducted;
• whether a statutory excuse exists;
• what the sponsor knew and when;
• whether the worker was sponsored;
• whether the worker’s actual role corresponded with their sponsorship;
• whether required reports were made;
• whether the problem affected other workers; and
• what remedial action has been taken.

 

The response should distinguish between allegations that are factually incorrect, breaches that did occur and wider compliance concerns that have since been remedied.

 

4. Evidence is Critical During Suspension

 

Assertions that the organisation is generally compliant are unlikely to be sufficient where the Home Office has identified specific concerns.

The sponsor should be able to support its position with contemporaneous evidence.

Depending on the case, this may include:

 

• right to work check records;
• Home Office online check evidence;
• Positive Verification Notices;
• immigration documentation;
• Certificates of Sponsorship;
• contracts and job descriptions;
• payroll records;
• attendance records;
• Sponsor Management System reports;
• HR policies and procedures;
• training records;
• internal audit evidence; and
• records showing remedial measures taken after the issue was discovered.

 

Where the organisation accepts that a compliance failure occurred, credible evidence of remediation can be important, although remedial action does not necessarily prevent revocation where the applicable sponsor rules require or normally provide for that outcome.

 

5. Remediation Cannot Override a Mandatory Enforcement Ground

 

Sponsors should be careful not to assume that correcting a compliance failure automatically protects the licence.

Remediation is important because it can demonstrate that the organisation has identified and corrected weaknesses, and it may be highly relevant where the Home Office has discretion over the outcome.

However, where the facts fall within a mandatory revocation ground, remediation cannot convert that ground into a discretionary one.

Similarly, where the sponsor guidance provides that the Home Office will normally revoke in the relevant circumstances, the organisation needs to address the precise legal and factual basis of that ground rather than relying only on improvements made after the event.

This makes accurate classification of the alleged breach critical when responding to suspension action.

 

6. Suspension Can Escalate to Revocation

 

Where the Home Office concludes that the sponsor has committed a sufficiently serious breach, or that the organisation no longer meets the requirements of the sponsorship regime, suspension can ultimately lead to revocation.

The risk can be particularly significant where illegal working is accompanied by:

 

• multiple affected workers;
• previous civil penalties;
• previous sponsor compliance concerns;
• knowing or deliberate non-compliance;
• failure to conduct required checks;
• evidence that management was aware of the issue;
• continued employment after the problem became known;
• serious sponsored role discrepancies;
• inadequate records;
• misleading information provided to the Home Office; or
• evidence that compliance failures are systemic rather than isolated.

 

The employer should therefore consider the potential revocation position from the outset rather than waiting to see whether a suspension develops into more serious enforcement action.

 

7. The Central Question is Whether the Organisation Can Still be Trusted as a Sponsor

 

Sponsor licensing gives organisations access to a system through which overseas workers can obtain immigration permission to work in the UK.

The Home Office therefore expects sponsors to exercise effective control over their sponsorship activities and to comply with the wider immigration requirements applying to their workforce.

Where illegal working is identified, the wider sponsor compliance question is whether the circumstances demonstrate that the organisation remains capable of carrying out those responsibilities.

An isolated administrative failure that is properly understood and addressed may present a very different compliance picture from deliberate illegal working or widespread failures affecting multiple workers.

However, sponsors should not assume that describing an incident as isolated will make it so. The organisation should be able to demonstrate, through evidence and audit, that the same weakness has not affected other parts of the workforce.

For detailed guidance on the suspension process and responding to Home Office allegations, see our guide to sponsor licence suspension.

The current Home Office enforcement framework is set out in Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors, Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section H: Can Illegal Working Lead to Sponsor Licence Revocation?

 

Yes. Illegal working can lead to sponsor licence revocation, and in some circumstances the Home Office sponsor guidance provides for a substantially stronger consequence than simply saying that revocation is possible.

The correct legal analysis depends on the particular facts and the specific enforcement ground engaged. Current sponsor guidance distinguishes between circumstances where the Home Office may revoke a sponsor licence, circumstances where it will normally revoke and circumstances where revocation is mandatory.

Employers should therefore avoid treating every illegal working incident as carrying the same level of sponsor licence risk.

 

1. Illegal Working Can Fall Within the Revocation Framework

 

The Home Office treats compliance with UK immigration law and the prevention of illegal working as fundamental sponsor responsibilities.

Where a sponsor employs or sponsors a person who is subject to immigration control but does not have the relevant permission to undertake the work, the circumstances can engage the Home Office’s sponsor licence revocation provisions.

The position is particularly serious where the sponsor:

 

• failed to conduct the appropriate right to work check;
• could reasonably have been aware that the individual did not have permission to undertake the work;
• continued allowing the individual to work after becoming aware of the issue;
• has received civil penalties for illegal working;
• has repeated illegal working breaches;
• has wider deficiencies in its right to work systems; or
• has other serious sponsor compliance failures connected with the incident.

 

In specified circumstances involving an individual without the relevant permission and failures in the sponsor’s checking or knowledge of the position, current Home Office guidance provides that the licence will normally be revoked.

The organisation should therefore establish which particular enforcement provision applies rather than relying on a general assessment that revocation is merely possible.

 

2. ‘May Revoke’, ‘Will Normally Revoke’ & Mandatory Revocation are Different

 

The distinction between the different categories of sponsor enforcement is important.

Where the guidance provides that the Home Office may revoke, there is discretion over whether revocation is the appropriate outcome in the circumstances.

Where the guidance provides that the Home Office will normally revoke, the starting position is substantially more serious. The sponsor needs to consider the precise ground relied on, whether the facts actually establish that ground and whether there are circumstances relevant under the applicable guidance.

Where a mandatory revocation ground applies, the sponsor cannot rely on general mitigation or subsequent remediation to convert the mandatory consequence into a discretionary one.

This hierarchy is particularly important when assessing an illegal working incident because different aspects of the same case can potentially engage different provisions of the sponsor guidance.

 

3. Failure to Carry Out Right to Work Checks Can Increase Revocation Risk

 

The sponsor’s checking history can be central to the Home Office’s assessment.

If an individual did not have permission to undertake the work and the sponsor failed to carry out the appropriate right to work check, the case is materially different from one in which an administrative deficiency is identified but the individual was at all times legally entitled to undertake the work.

The Home Office may also consider whether the sponsor could reasonably have been aware that the worker lacked the required permission.

This means that an employer should not focus only on whether a particular document is present in the personnel file.

The relevant questions include:

 

• what immigration permission the individual actually held;
• whether that permission allowed the work;
• what check was undertaken;
• whether the check was undertaken at the required time;
• whether further verification was required;
• what information was available to the organisation;
• when concerns first arose; and
• what the organisation did after becoming aware of those concerns.

 

4. Knowing or Deliberate Illegal Working is Particularly Serious

 

The sponsor’s knowledge and conduct can materially affect the seriousness of the case.

Allowing an individual to work where management knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that the person is not permitted to undertake the work creates substantially greater risk than an inadvertent administrative error.

Potentially aggravating circumstances can include:

 

• ignoring information showing that permission has expired;
• continuing employment after an adverse right to work verification;
• deliberately avoiding required checks;
• allowing a sponsored worker to undertake work known to fall outside permitted conditions;
• concealing the true nature of a sponsored role;
• creating inaccurate records after an issue has arisen;
• providing misleading information to the Home Office; or
• repeating conduct that has previously resulted in enforcement action.

 

Depending on the circumstances, knowing illegal working may also create criminal exposure in addition to sponsor licence and civil penalty consequences.

 

5. Sponsored Role Mismatches Can Engage Mandatory Revocation

 

Illegal working concerns involving sponsored workers can also overlap with separate mandatory sponsor enforcement grounds.

In particular, current Home Office sponsor guidance identifies specified circumstances where a sponsored worker is found to be working in a role that does not match the occupation code or job description recorded on their Certificate of Sponsorship and the change is not permitted under the sponsorship rules.

Where the relevant mandatory revocation ground is established, this is not simply a matter of the Home Office deciding whether the organisation’s overall compliance is sufficiently poor to justify revocation.

The existence of a mandatory ground fundamentally changes the sponsor’s position.

This makes it essential for employers to assess material changes to sponsored roles before implementing them and to ensure that the work actually being undertaken corresponds with the sponsorship arrangements.

 

6. One Illegal Worker Can Still Present Serious Licence Risk

 

An employer should not assume that sponsor licence revocation requires multiple illegal workers.

The significance of an incident depends on the relevant enforcement ground and the circumstances, not simply the number of workers affected.

A single worker can create serious sponsor licence exposure where, for example:

 

• the organisation knew the individual did not have permission to undertake the work;
• required right to work checks were not conducted;
• the sponsor could reasonably have been aware of the problem;
• the individual was sponsored but was undertaking work inconsistent with their immigration conditions;
• a mandatory sponsor revocation ground is engaged; or
• the case exposes serious deficiencies in the organisation’s compliance systems.

 

Conversely, the discovery of one defective personnel record does not automatically establish that the worker was employed illegally or that the licence must be revoked.

The facts and applicable sponsor guidance need to be analysed precisely.

 

7. Repeated Illegal Working Can Significantly Increase the Risk

 

Repeated breaches can put a sponsor in a substantially more difficult position.

Previous civil penalties, previous sponsor compliance action and evidence that earlier weaknesses were not corrected can all be highly damaging.

Where an organisation has already been alerted to weaknesses in its right to work systems, a subsequent illegal working incident may suggest that remedial measures were ineffective or were not properly implemented.

The Home Office may also consider multiple civil penalties differently from a first civil penalty when applying the sponsor enforcement framework.

Employers that have previously experienced illegal working enforcement should therefore treat subsequent incidents as particularly high risk and review the applicable sponsor guidance immediately.

 

8. Revocation Has Consequences Beyond Future Recruitment

 

The loss of a sponsor licence does more than prevent an organisation from sponsoring new workers.

Revocation can affect:

 

• the organisation’s ability to recruit sponsored workers;
• Certificates of Sponsorship that have not yet been used;
• existing sponsored workers;
• current recruitment exercises;
• business continuity;
• projects dependent on sponsored personnel;
• workforce planning; and
• the organisation’s ability to return to the sponsorship system.

 

Where a sponsor licence is revoked, the Home Office will normally take action affecting the immigration permission of workers being sponsored by that organisation, subject to the applicable immigration rules and the individual circumstances.

Revocation should therefore be treated as a significant workforce and business continuity risk rather than merely an immigration administrative sanction.

 

9. Revocation Can Prevent the Organisation Reapplying

 

Revocation can also result in a period during which the organisation cannot successfully return to the sponsor licensing system.

The applicable cooling-off period depends on the reason for revocation and the organisation’s compliance history.

Under the current sponsor guidance, revocation will generally prevent a fresh sponsor licence application for a specified period. In relevant circumstances the minimum period can increase where there has been previous revocation or serious illegal working enforcement.

Illegal working cases involving multiple civil penalties can carry particularly significant consequences, with the applicable period potentially extending for several years.

The precise cooling-off period should therefore be checked against the current sponsor guidance and the particular revocation ground rather than assuming that the same period applies to every revoked sponsor.

 

10. Remediation Remains Important, But Has Limits

 

Where an organisation discovers an illegal working problem, prompt remediation remains important.

Corrective measures may help demonstrate that the sponsor understands what went wrong, has investigated whether other workers are affected and has taken credible steps to prevent recurrence.

However, remediation should not be confused with a guaranteed defence against revocation.

Where the Home Office has discretion, evidence of effective remediation may be relevant to the overall assessment.

Where the guidance states that the Home Office will normally revoke, the organisation needs to address the particular factual and legal basis of the revocation ground.

Where mandatory revocation applies, subsequent remediation cannot remove the mandatory consequence if the relevant ground has been established.

This is why sponsors facing serious illegal working allegations should identify the precise enforcement provision at an early stage.

For detailed guidance on the enforcement process, see our guide to sponsor licence revocation.

The current Home Office revocation framework is contained in Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors, Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section I: Civil Penalties & Sponsor Licence Consequences

 

A civil penalty for illegal working and Home Office action against a sponsor licence are separate enforcement processes.

However, the same underlying illegal working incident can engage both regimes.

A sponsor should therefore avoid treating a civil penalty solely as a financial liability. For a licensed sponsor, the circumstances giving rise to the penalty can also place the sponsor licence at risk.

 

1. Civil Penalties for Illegal Working

 

Where an organisation employs or engages an individual within the scope of the illegal working civil penalty regime and the requirements for liability are established, the Home Office can impose a financial penalty.

The maximum civil penalty is currently £60,000 for each illegal worker.

The financial exposure can therefore become substantial where more than one worker is involved.

Whether the organisation is liable, and the amount ultimately payable, depends on the statutory regime and the circumstances of the case, including whether the organisation can establish an applicable statutory excuse and whether other factors affect the penalty.

Detailed consideration of penalty calculation, objection and appeal belongs within the civil penalty process rather than the sponsor licence analysis.

See our guide to civil penalties for illegal working for detailed guidance.

 

2. A Civil Penalty Can Also Put the Sponsor Licence at Risk

 

For a sponsor licence holder, receipt of a civil penalty can have consequences beyond the amount of the penalty itself.

Current Home Office sponsor guidance includes illegal working civil penalties within the sponsor enforcement framework.

A first civil penalty can fall within circumstances in which the Home Office may revoke the sponsor licence once the relevant liability position has been determined under the applicable enforcement process.

The risk can become substantially more serious where there are multiple penalties, repeat breaches or other aggravating sponsor compliance failures.

The employer should therefore assess the sponsor licence implications as soon as a civil penalty issue arises rather than waiting until the financial enforcement process has concluded before considering sponsorship.

 

3. A First Civil Penalty Does Not Automatically Mean Revocation

 

It is important not to overstate the effect of a first civil penalty.

A civil penalty does not necessarily mean that the sponsor licence will automatically be revoked.

The current sponsor guidance distinguishes circumstances where the Home Office has discretion to revoke from the more serious categories in which it will normally revoke or revocation is mandatory.

Where a first civil penalty falls within a discretionary revocation ground, the organisation’s position needs to be assessed against the precise terms of the guidance and the circumstances of the case.

However, the existence of discretion should not be interpreted as meaning that the penalty is irrelevant to the licence.

The Home Office may examine the underlying circumstances and whether they reveal wider sponsor compliance problems.

 

4. Multiple Civil Penalties Can Create Greater Sponsor Risk

 

Repeated illegal working enforcement can have much more serious sponsor consequences.

Multiple civil penalties can move the organisation into a different part of the sponsor enforcement framework and may result in substantially greater revocation and cooling-off risks.

The Home Office may also consider what the repeat breach indicates about the effectiveness of the organisation’s compliance systems.

Where an employer has previously received a civil penalty, it would normally be expected to have investigated the cause and strengthened its procedures.

A subsequent illegal working incident may therefore raise questions about whether:

 

• the original weakness was properly identified;
• remedial measures were implemented;
• relevant staff were trained;
• management exercised sufficient oversight;
• right to work procedures were followed consistently;
• the organisation audited other worker files; and
• the sponsor remains capable of meeting its immigration compliance responsibilities.

 

5. Challenging a Civil Penalty Does Not Remove the Need to Assess Sponsor Risk

 

An organisation receiving a civil penalty may have grounds to object to the penalty and, where applicable, pursue an appeal.

That process can be important where liability is disputed, a statutory excuse exists or the amount of the penalty is challenged.

However, the existence of an objection or appeal does not mean the organisation should ignore the sponsor licence implications in the meantime.

The underlying circumstances may already reveal weaknesses requiring immediate remediation.

For example, even where the organisation ultimately succeeds in challenging a penalty, an internal review might identify:

 

• inconsistent right to work procedures;
• weak follow-up checking arrangements;
• poor immigration record keeping;
• unclear responsibility for compliance;
• deficiencies affecting sponsored workers; or
• failures in sponsor monitoring or reporting.

 

These issues should be addressed on their own merits rather than postponed until the civil penalty process is complete.

 

6. Paying a Civil Penalty Does Not Necessarily Close the Sponsor Issue

 

Similarly, paying a civil penalty should not be treated as automatically resolving the sponsor licence consequences.

Payment deals with the financial penalty. It does not necessarily prevent the Home Office from considering whether the underlying conduct engages sponsor enforcement provisions.

The sponsor should therefore assess separately:

 

1. the civil penalty liability;
2. the facts that led to the penalty;
3. any weaknesses in the organisation’s right to work systems;
4. any breaches of sponsor duties;
5. whether sponsored workers are affected;
6. whether the circumstances engage a sponsor revocation ground; and
7. what remediation is required.

 

This is particularly important where the organisation’s initial commercial instinct is simply to pay the penalty and move on.

For a sponsor licence holder, the licence may represent a significantly greater business asset than the amount of the penalty itself.

 

7. Civil Penalty Cases Can Trigger Wider Home Office Scrutiny

 

An illegal working civil penalty can also become a trigger for wider Home Office scrutiny.

The Home Office may consider whether the circumstances warrant further investigation of the sponsor’s workforce and compliance arrangements.

This can include scrutiny of:

 

• other right to work files;
• workers with time-limited permission;
• sponsored worker records;
• Certificates of Sponsorship;
• actual sponsored roles;
• salary and payroll records;
• attendance monitoring;
• Sponsor Management System reporting;
• record-keeping procedures; and
• the organisation’s wider HR compliance systems.

 

The sponsor should therefore consider whether it would be prudent to conduct its own internal compliance review before further Home Office scrutiny occurs.

 

8. Civil Penalty Strategy Should Take Account of the Sponsor Licence

 

For organisations without a sponsor licence, the principal focus of an illegal working civil penalty may be liability for the penalty and the associated reputational and operational consequences.

For a licensed sponsor, the strategy needs to be broader.

Decisions about whether and how to respond to a civil penalty should take account of the potential sponsor licence implications of the underlying findings.

This can include considering:

 

• whether accepting particular factual allegations could have consequences for the sponsor licence;
• whether the Home Office’s account of the right to work failure is accurate;
• whether a statutory excuse exists;
• whether the worker was sponsored;
• whether other workers could be affected by the same compliance weakness;
• whether sponsor reporting obligations have arisen;
• whether immediate remediation is required; and
• whether the circumstances fall within a discretionary, will normally revoke or mandatory revocation ground.

 

The civil penalty and sponsor licence processes should therefore be managed as connected regulatory risks, even though they remain legally distinct.

Current official guidance on illegal working penalties is available in the Home Office Code of Practice on Preventing Illegal Working, while sponsor licence consequences should be assessed against Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors, Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section J: Does Illegal Working by a Non-Sponsored Worker Affect the Licence?

 

Yes. Illegal working involving a non-sponsored worker can affect an organisation’s sponsor licence.

A common misconception is that sponsor compliance is concerned only with employees who have been sponsored under the organisation’s licence. In reality, the Home Office can consider illegal working elsewhere in the workforce when assessing whether an organisation remains suitable to hold a sponsor licence and whether it is complying with its wider immigration responsibilities.

The fact that the individual involved was not sponsored does not therefore make an illegal working incident irrelevant to the sponsor licence.

 

1. Sponsor Compliance Extends Beyond Sponsored Workers

 

Licensed sponsors are expected to comply with UK immigration law and to operate appropriate systems for preventing illegal working.

Current Home Office sponsor guidance expressly addresses right to work compliance in relation to employees whether they are sponsored or not.

This means an organisation cannot operate one effective immigration compliance system for sponsored workers while allowing materially weaker controls to apply elsewhere in its workforce.

If a non-sponsored worker is found to be working illegally, the Home Office may consider what the incident demonstrates about the organisation’s wider compliance arrangements.

 

2. The Same HR Systems Often Apply to Sponsored & Non-Sponsored Workers

 

One reason non-sponsored illegal working can become relevant to the sponsor licence is that organisations commonly use the same recruitment, onboarding and HR systems across their workforce.

For example, the same processes may be responsible for:

 

• conducting initial right to work checks;
• recording immigration status;
• retaining evidence;
• monitoring time-limited permission;
• triggering follow-up checks;
• escalating immigration concerns;
• managing changes in employment; and
• ensuring workers do not continue working where they no longer have permission.

 

If those systems fail for a non-sponsored worker, the Home Office may reasonably examine whether the same weakness affects sponsored workers.

An individual illegal working case can therefore operate as an indicator of a wider compliance problem.

 

3. Non-Sponsored Does Not Mean Unrestricted

 

A worker does not have to be sponsored to be subject to immigration restrictions on their employment.

Some individuals may have immigration permission obtained independently of the employer but remain subject to conditions governing whether, where or how they can work.

Others may have time-limited permission that requires the employer to take further action at the appropriate stage to maintain the relevant statutory excuse.

The employer should therefore establish the right to work of individuals within the scope of the statutory regime regardless of whether the organisation sponsored their immigration application.

From 1 October 2026, organisations should also take account of the extension of statutory right to work requirements to specified working arrangements beyond conventional employment.

For detailed guidance on the expanded regime, see our guide to right to work checks.

 

4. One Non-Sponsored Illegal Worker Does Not Automatically Mean Licence Revocation

 

The fact that a non-sponsored worker has been identified as working illegally does not mean the sponsor licence will automatically be revoked.

The organisation needs to establish the circumstances and the particular sponsor enforcement provisions engaged.

Relevant considerations can include:

 

• whether the individual actually lacked permission to undertake the work;
• whether an appropriate right to work check was conducted;
• whether the employer had a statutory excuse;
• whether the employer knew or could reasonably have been aware of the person’s immigration position;
• whether a civil penalty has been imposed;
• whether similar failures affect other workers;
• whether there is a history of previous illegal working;
• whether the incident demonstrates systemic compliance failures; and
• which sponsor enforcement ground applies to the circumstances.

 

Where the facts fall within a ground under which the Home Office may revoke, will normally revoke or must revoke the sponsor licence, the consequences will depend on the terms of that particular provision.

 

5. The Home Office May Sample Other Worker Files

 

Where an illegal working problem is discovered, the Home Office may look beyond the worker concerned.

It may examine other personnel files to determine whether the organisation is applying its right to work procedures consistently.

This can be particularly important where the original problem appears to result from a process failure rather than an unusual issue confined to one individual.

For example, the discovery that one non-sponsored employee did not receive a required follow-up check may lead to questions about all other employees with time-limited permission.

Likewise, a failure at one branch, site or business unit may result in scrutiny of whether the same procedures are being followed elsewhere.

 

6. Non-Sponsored Illegal Working Can Expose Sponsor Governance Weaknesses

 

The Home Office may also consider whether the incident reflects weaknesses in the sponsor’s governance arrangements.

This can include whether:

 

• responsibility for right to work compliance is clearly allocated;
• relevant personnel understand the checking requirements;
• key personnel exercise appropriate oversight;
• operational managers escalate immigration issues;
• different sites follow consistent procedures;
• compliance systems are audited;
• previous weaknesses have been corrected; and
• senior management has appropriate visibility of immigration compliance risk.

 

The central sponsor licence question is therefore not simply:

“Was this worker sponsored?”

It is also:

“What does this incident demonstrate about the organisation’s ability to operate as a compliant sponsor?”

For further guidance on workforce-wide prevention measures, see our guide to preventing illegal working.

Current Home Office sponsor requirements are set out in Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors, Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section K: Illegal Working Discovered During a Compliance Visit

 

A Home Office sponsor compliance visit can expose illegal working problems that were not previously known to the organisation or that had not been recognised as immigration compliance issues.

Right to work records, sponsored worker files, recruitment processes and the work actually being undertaken can all become relevant during a compliance assessment.

Where a potential illegal working issue is identified, the scope of Home Office scrutiny may widen considerably.

 

1. Right to Work Records May Be Examined

 

During a sponsor compliance visit, Home Office officers may examine records relevant to the organisation’s immigration and sponsor compliance obligations.

This can include evidence relating to right to work checks.

The organisation may need to demonstrate:

 

• how workers’ right to work is established before work begins;
• who is responsible for conducting checks;
• how evidence is retained;
• how restrictions are identified;
• how time-limited permission is monitored;
• how follow-up action is triggered;
• how sponsored workers are monitored; and
• how compliance concerns are escalated.

 

Where the organisation’s records do not correspond with its stated procedures, this can raise additional concerns about whether the sponsor’s compliance systems operate effectively in practice.

 

2. The Home Office Can Compare Records With What Happens in Practice

 

Sponsor compliance is not assessed solely by reviewing written policies.

The Home Office can consider whether the organisation’s actual working arrangements correspond with its records and the information provided through the sponsorship system.

For sponsored workers, this can include comparing:

 

• the Certificate of Sponsorship;
• the stated occupation code;
• the job description;
• the employment contract;
• salary and payroll records;
• work location;
• attendance information;
• management explanations; and
• the duties the worker actually performs.

 

Material inconsistencies can create significant risk, particularly where a sponsored worker is performing a role that does not correspond with the occupation code or job description on which the sponsorship is based and the change is not permitted under the sponsor rules.

As explained above, specified prohibited role mismatches can engage mandatory revocation provisions.

 

3. Workers May Be Interviewed

 

Compliance officers may speak to workers as part of the assessment.

Worker interviews can be used to test whether the organisation’s records reflect the reality of the employment.

Questions may relate to matters such as:

 

• the worker’s job;
• their actual day-to-day duties;
• their place of work;
• working hours;
• salary;
• reporting lines;
• how they were recruited;
• changes in their role; and
• other matters relevant to their sponsorship or immigration position.

 

Material differences between a worker’s account and the sponsor’s records can prompt further investigation.

This is why sponsors should focus on genuine operational compliance rather than attempting to prepare employees to provide rehearsed answers for a Home Office visit.

 

4. One Discrepancy Can Widen the Compliance Visit

 

An apparently isolated discrepancy can lead officers to examine additional records.

For example, discovering one worker without evidence of an appropriate right to work check may lead the Home Office to sample other worker files.

Finding one sponsored worker whose actual duties differ materially from the sponsored role may result in examination of other Certificates of Sponsorship and job descriptions.

Similarly, a missed immigration expiry date may lead to scrutiny of the organisation’s entire expiry-monitoring system.

The practical risk is that an issue initially concerning one worker exposes weaknesses affecting a much larger section of the workforce.

 

5. Employers Should Avoid Improvised Explanations

 

Where a discrepancy is identified during a compliance visit, employers should avoid giving speculative explanations simply to provide an immediate answer.

If the facts need to be checked, it may be preferable to establish the correct position from the organisation’s records rather than provide an inaccurate explanation that later conflicts with documentary evidence.

This is particularly important where several people within the organisation may be asked about the same process or worker.

Inconsistent accounts can create additional credibility concerns even where the underlying compliance issue could otherwise have been explained.

 

6. Records Should Never Be Manufactured or Retrospectively Altered

 

If a required record does not exist, the organisation should not create or alter documentation to suggest that a historic compliance action occurred when it did not.

The distinction between historic evidence and subsequent remediation should remain clear.

For example, if an employer discovers during an internal review that a right to work check was not retained correctly, it may be appropriate to take corrective action where legally available and to improve the process going forward.

That is different from creating a record suggesting that the original prescribed check occurred when there is no evidence that it did.

Providing inaccurate or misleading information to the Home Office can significantly worsen the sponsor’s position.

 

7. Illegal Working Findings Can Trigger Several Enforcement Routes

 

If suspected illegal working is identified during a compliance visit, the resulting action does not necessarily fall into a single enforcement process.

The circumstances may potentially lead to:

 

• further investigation of the worker’s immigration status;
• illegal working enforcement;
• a civil penalty;
• criminal investigation where the applicable threshold is met;
• wider examination of other workers;
• additional sponsor compliance enquiries;
• sponsor licence suspension;
• licence revocation; or
• other sponsor enforcement action available under the applicable guidance.

 

The same underlying facts can therefore generate several connected regulatory risks.

 

8. Sponsors Should Audit Before a Compliance Visit Where Possible

 

Where an organisation knows that a Home Office compliance visit is due, it should use the available time to establish whether its records and systems accurately reflect its current workforce.

This should not be treated as an exercise in making files appear compliant immediately before the visit.

The purpose is to identify genuine weaknesses, establish the facts and correct issues where lawful and possible.

An effective pre-visit review can include:

 

• sampling right to work records;
• checking workers with time-limited permission;
• reviewing sponsored worker files;
• comparing sponsored roles with actual duties;
• reviewing Certificates of Sponsorship;
• checking salary and payroll information;
• reviewing attendance monitoring;
• checking Sponsor Management System reporting;
• reviewing key personnel arrangements;
• checking record-keeping requirements;
• identifying unresolved immigration issues; and
• testing whether documented HR procedures operate in practice.

 

Where problems are identified, the sponsor should understand what happened and what action is required rather than attempting to conceal the issue.

 

9. Assess Findings at Individual, Process & Sponsor Level

 

Where an illegal working concern arises during a compliance visit, it can help to assess the problem at three levels.

Individual level: What is the worker’s actual immigration position? Are they permitted to undertake the work? Was the correct check conducted? Are they sponsored and are they working consistently with that sponsorship?

Process level: Why did the issue occur? Was there a failure in recruitment, checking, monitoring, reporting, record keeping, management communication or another internal control?

Sponsor level: Does the problem affect other workers? Does it engage a sponsor enforcement ground? What does it indicate about the organisation’s overall suitability to hold the licence?

This approach helps prevent the organisation from focusing entirely on correcting one personnel file while overlooking the wider compliance issue that may concern the Home Office.

For detailed guidance on preparing for and responding to Home Office scrutiny, see our guide to UKVI compliance visits.

The Home Office’s current sponsor compliance requirements are set out in Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors, Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section L: What Should a Sponsor Do if Illegal Working is Suspected?

 

Where a sponsor licence holder suspects that an individual may be working illegally, the response should be prompt, controlled and evidence-based.

The organisation should not assume either that the individual is definitely working illegally or that the issue can be resolved simply by obtaining another copy of an immigration document.

The correct response depends on establishing the worker’s actual immigration position, the work they are undertaking, the checks previously carried out and any separate implications under the sponsorship regime.

A useful framework is:

STOP → VERIFY → PRESERVE → ASSESS → REPORT → REMEDIATE → PREPARE

 

1. STOP — Control the Immediate Risk

 

The first priority is to identify whether the organisation can lawfully continue allowing the individual to work while the position is investigated.

This does not mean that immediate dismissal will always be the correct response.

There may be circumstances where the individual’s right to work can be established through further verification, including where an immigration application is pending and the Employer Checking Service can be used.

Equally, an employer should not allow work to continue simply because the worker states that an application has been made or that their immigration adviser has confirmed they can work.

The organisation needs reliable evidence of the individual’s position through the appropriate Home Office process.

Depending on the circumstances, immediate steps may include:

 

• escalating the issue to the person responsible for immigration compliance;
• identifying the worker’s current immigration status;
• establishing whether they can continue working while enquiries are made;
• preventing further unauthorised work where the position is clear;
• restricting operational changes that could complicate the position;
• identifying whether the individual is sponsored; and
• considering whether specialist immigration and employment law advice is required.

 

The organisation should document why the immediate course of action was taken.

 

2. VERIFY — Establish the Worker’s Actual Immigration Position

 

The next stage is to establish the facts.

The employer should determine what immigration permission the individual currently holds and whether that permission allows them to undertake the particular work they are doing.

This may require checking:

 

• the individual’s current immigration status;
• the conditions attached to their permission;
• the expiry date of their permission;
• whether an in-time application has been made;
• whether an appeal or administrative review affects their position;
• whether an Employer Checking Service verification is appropriate;
• whether the worker is subject to restrictions on their employment;
• whether the individual is sponsored; and
• where sponsored, whether the work being undertaken remains consistent with their sponsorship.

 

The employer should avoid relying exclusively on old documents or information held on the personnel file where more recent information is available through the prescribed Home Office checking process.

The critical question is not merely whether the person has some form of immigration status. It is whether their current status permits the work they are actually undertaking.

 

3. PRESERVE — Secure the Evidence

 

Once a potential illegal working issue has been identified, relevant evidence should be preserved.

This is particularly important if the incident could result in a civil penalty, Home Office compliance investigation, sponsor licence suspension or revocation.

Potentially relevant evidence can include:

 

• original right to work records;
• online right to work check results;
• copies of immigration documents;
• Positive Verification Notices;
• Employer Checking Service correspondence;
• employment contracts;
• offer letters;
• job descriptions;
• Certificates of Sponsorship;
• salary and payroll records;
• attendance records;
• records of changes in role or duties;
• Sponsor Management System reports;
• communications with the worker;
• communications between HR and operational managers;
• internal compliance records; and
• training or policy documents relevant to the failure.

 

Evidence should be preserved in its original form wherever possible.

Missing records should not be retrospectively manufactured and existing records should not be altered to suggest that a historic check or compliance action took place when it did not.

If corrective action is taken after the issue is identified, it should be clearly recorded as subsequent remediation.

 

4. ASSESS — Separate the Different Legal & Compliance Issues

 

Once the facts have been established, the organisation should assess the incident across the different legal regimes potentially involved.

This is important because the existence of one type of failure does not automatically establish all of the others.

The assessment should consider:

Immigration status: Did the individual have permission to be in the UK and to undertake the work in question?

Right to work compliance: Was the appropriate prescribed check carried out at the required time?

Statutory excuse: Does the organisation have protection against liability for a civil penalty?

Illegal working liability: Could the circumstances result in civil or criminal enforcement?

Sponsor compliance: Has the organisation breached any duties arising from its sponsor licence?

Sponsored worker compliance: If the worker is sponsored, are they undertaking the role and work permitted by their sponsorship and immigration conditions?

Reporting: Is any report or other action required through the Sponsor Management System?

Licence enforcement: Do the circumstances potentially engage a ground under which the Home Office may revoke, will normally revoke or must revoke the sponsor licence?

Employment law: What steps can the organisation lawfully take in relation to the individual’s employment while the immigration position is investigated or resolved?

Keeping these questions separate reduces the risk of the organisation reaching an incorrect conclusion based on one aspect of the case.

 

5. REPORT — Identify Any Home Office Reporting Obligations

 

Where the incident involves a sponsored worker, the organisation should determine whether the circumstances trigger a reporting obligation through the Sponsor Management System.

The correct reporting position depends on what has happened.

Relevant circumstances can include changes to sponsored employment, cessation of sponsorship or other reportable changes under the applicable sponsor guidance.

The organisation should establish:

 

• whether a report is required;
• what information needs to be reported;
• the applicable reporting deadline;
• who is authorised to make the report;
• whether supporting evidence should be retained; and
• whether the report creates or affects any other immigration or employment issue.

 

The sponsor should not make speculative or inaccurate reports before establishing the facts, but neither should it delay a required report while carrying out an unnecessarily prolonged internal investigation.

The applicable Sponsor Management System reporting requirements and deadlines should be checked against the current Home Office sponsor guidance.

 

6. REMEDIATE — Fix the Cause, Not Just the Individual File

 

Resolving the position of the individual worker is only part of the response.

The sponsor should establish why the problem occurred.

If the incident resulted from a process weakness, correcting one personnel file without addressing the underlying failure leaves the organisation exposed to the same problem recurring.

Depending on the circumstances, remediation may include:

 

• auditing other right to work files;
• checking all workers with time-limited permission;
• reviewing sponsored worker records;
• comparing sponsored roles against Certificates of Sponsorship;
• reviewing immigration expiry-date monitoring;
• correcting follow-up check procedures;
• reviewing Sponsor Management System reporting processes;
• retraining HR, recruitment or operational personnel;
• clarifying escalation responsibilities;
• reviewing contingent worker and subcontractor processes;
• improving management oversight;
• updating compliance policies; and
• conducting a wider sponsor licence audit.

 

Where the issue has arisen because an operational manager changed a sponsored worker’s duties without involving the sponsor compliance team, for example, simply correcting the worker’s file will not address the underlying governance weakness.

The organisation may need to introduce a control requiring immigration approval before material changes to sponsored roles are implemented.

 

7. PREPARE — Anticipate Home Office Scrutiny

 

A serious illegal working incident should be assessed on the assumption that the Home Office may ultimately scrutinise what happened.

The sponsor should therefore be capable of explaining:

 

1. what happened;
2. when it happened;
3. how the issue was discovered;
4. what the worker’s actual immigration position was;
5. what checks had previously been undertaken;
6. why the problem occurred;
7. who within the organisation knew about it and when;
8. what immediate action was taken;
9. whether other workers were affected;
10. what reporting obligations arose;
11. what remediation was implemented; and
12. how the organisation will prevent recurrence.

 

The sponsor should be able to support that explanation with evidence rather than relying solely on assertions about its compliance culture.

A clear contemporaneous chronology can be particularly useful where the issue later results in a compliance visit, civil penalty or sponsor enforcement action.

 

8. Do Not Assume Immediate Dismissal is Always the First Step

 

Employers should be cautious about assuming that every right to work concern requires immediate dismissal.

A worker may appear to have reached the expiry date of their previous immigration permission while retaining a continuing right to work because of an outstanding in-time immigration application or another relevant immigration process.

In appropriate circumstances, the Employer Checking Service may enable the employer to verify the position.

Employers should therefore establish the immigration facts before deciding on the appropriate employment action.

At the same time, an organisation should not permit work to continue indefinitely where the required right to work cannot be established.

Immigration and employment law considerations may need to be managed together, particularly where the position is uncertain.

 

9. Serious Cases Should Be Escalated Immediately

 

Certain circumstances should be treated as particularly high risk and escalated promptly.

These can include:

 

• evidence that an individual has no permission to undertake the work;
• several potentially affected workers;
• a previous civil penalty for illegal working;
• previous sponsor licence compliance action;
• evidence that management knew about the illegal working;
• continued work after the organisation became aware of the problem;
• a sponsored worker performing a materially different and impermissible role;
• potentially inaccurate information having been provided to the Home Office;
• systemic failures in right to work checking;
• evidence that required sponsor reports were not made; or
• notification of a Home Office investigation or compliance visit.

 

These circumstances can materially affect the potential sponsor enforcement outcome and may require coordinated immigration, sponsor compliance and employment law advice.

 

10. Apply the STOP → VERIFY → PRESERVE → ASSESS → REPORT → REMEDIATE → PREPARE Framework

 

For practical purposes, sponsors dealing with suspected illegal working can use the following response sequence:

STOP — control any immediate risk and establish whether work can lawfully continue.

VERIFY — establish the individual’s actual immigration status and right to undertake the work.

PRESERVE — secure the relevant records and evidence without retrospectively altering them.

ASSESS — analyse immigration status, right to work compliance, statutory excuse, civil or criminal exposure and sponsor licence implications separately.

REPORT — identify and comply with any applicable Sponsor Management System or other Home Office reporting requirements.

REMEDIATE — correct the underlying process or governance weakness and determine whether other workers are affected.

PREPARE — ensure the organisation can explain what happened, why it happened and what it has done in response if the Home Office scrutinises the incident.

The objective is not simply to resolve one worker’s immigration position. It is to protect the organisation from the wider regulatory consequences that can arise when illegal working exposes weaknesses in sponsor compliance.

Current right to work requirements are set out in the Home Office Right to Work Checks: An Employer’s Guide, while sponsor compliance consequences should be assessed against Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors, Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section M: Common Illegal Working Failures for Sponsors

 

Illegal working problems do not always arise because an employer deliberately engages someone who has no permission to work in the UK.

For sponsor licence holders, many incidents begin with weaknesses in recruitment, right to work checking, immigration monitoring, management communication or sponsor governance.

Understanding the most common failure points can help sponsors identify where their own systems are vulnerable before those weaknesses result in illegal working or Home Office enforcement.

 

1. Carrying Out the Right to Work Check After Work Has Started

 

Timing is fundamental to right to work compliance.

Where the prescribed check needed to establish a statutory excuse is carried out only after the individual has started work, the employer should not assume that the later check retrospectively protects the earlier period.

For sponsors, repeated late checks can also indicate that recruitment and onboarding controls are ineffective.

The organisation should therefore structure its recruitment process so that responsibility for completing the appropriate right to work check is clear and the individual cannot begin work before the required process has been completed.

 

2. Assuming Sponsorship Proves the Right to Work

 

A Certificate of Sponsorship is not evidence, by itself, that the individual currently has permission to undertake the work.

The Certificate of Sponsorship forms part of the immigration process through which the individual seeks or holds sponsored permission, but it is not itself immigration permission.

Sponsors should therefore ensure that the appropriate right to work process is completed rather than assuming that sponsorship makes a separate check unnecessary.

This applies particularly where several teams are involved in recruitment and one team assumes another has completed the required verification.

 

3. Missing a Required Follow-Up Check

 

Workers with time-limited immigration permission require appropriate monitoring.

A common failure occurs where the organisation conducts the initial right to work check correctly but does not take further action when required.

This can happen because:

 

• the immigration expiry date was not recorded;
• the expiry date was recorded incorrectly;
• the HR system generated no reminder;
• a reminder was generated but nobody was responsible for acting on it;
• responsibility changed when an employee moved between departments;
• the worker stated that a further application had been made but this was not verified; or
• the organisation misunderstood whether further verification was required.

 

A sponsor should therefore test whether its expiry-monitoring system produces action rather than merely storing dates.

 

4. Using the Wrong Right to Work Checking Process

 

Different individuals may need to have their right to work established through different prescribed processes.

Depending on the circumstances, this may involve an online Home Office check, an eligible document-based check or verification through the Employer Checking Service.

An employer can create compliance problems where it relies on a form of evidence that is not sufficient under the applicable right to work procedure.

Staff conducting checks should therefore understand which checking route applies and should work from the current Home Office guidance rather than historic internal practices.

 

5. Failing to Identify Restrictions on the Work

 

Establishing that an individual has some right to work is not always the end of the enquiry.

The organisation may also need to understand whether the individual’s immigration permission imposes restrictions relevant to the work being offered.

A person can have lawful immigration status and a right to undertake some work while still being prohibited from undertaking the particular work in question.

Right to work procedures should therefore be capable of identifying relevant restrictions rather than recording only that the individual has passed a check.

 

6. Allowing Immigration Permission to Expire Without Verification

 

Where an employee reaches the expiry date of their existing immigration permission, the employer should establish whether they retain a right to work.

The organisation should not simply allow employment to continue because the worker says that an extension application has been submitted.

Equally, expiry of the previous permission does not necessarily mean that the worker has automatically lost the right to work.

Where applicable, an in-time immigration application or other pending process may affect the individual’s continuing status, and the Employer Checking Service may be available to verify the position.

The sponsor should establish the legal position through the appropriate process rather than making assumptions in either direction.

 

7. Allowing a Sponsored Worker to Move Into a Different Role Without Immigration Review

 

Operational managers may regard changes in duties, promotion or internal transfers as ordinary HR decisions.

For a sponsored worker, however, a material change can have immigration and sponsor compliance consequences.

The sponsor should consider whether the new arrangements remain permissible under the worker’s existing sponsorship before the change is implemented.

This is particularly important where the change affects the occupation code or means the worker’s actual role no longer corresponds with the job description recorded on the Certificate of Sponsorship.

As current sponsor guidance contains mandatory revocation provisions for specified prohibited role mismatches, uncontrolled role changes can create significant licence risk.

 

8. Failing to Assess Additional Work

 

Another risk can arise where sponsored workers undertake work in addition to their sponsored role.

The conditions governing additional work should be checked rather than assuming that sponsored status gives the individual an unrestricted right to undertake any further employment.

The risk can be particularly easy to overlook where the sponsor itself offers the individual additional duties or work elsewhere within the organisation.

Before approving additional work, the employer should establish whether it is permitted under the individual’s immigration conditions and whether any further immigration or sponsorship action is required.

 

9. Poor Communication Between Managers & the Sponsor Compliance Team

 

Many sponsor compliance failures arise because information exists somewhere within the organisation but does not reach the people responsible for immigration compliance.

A line manager may know that a sponsored worker has:

 

• changed duties;
• changed work location;
• stopped attending work;
• taken prolonged unauthorised absence;
• changed working arrangements;
• left employment; or
• raised an immigration status issue.

 

If that information is not escalated, the sponsor team may be unable to assess whether reporting or other immigration action is required.

Sponsors should therefore ensure that managers understand which changes need to be referred to the relevant compliance personnel.

 

10. Inconsistent Procedures Across Sites or Business Units

 

Large organisations can face particular risk where different sites, subsidiaries, departments or business units operate different recruitment and right to work practices.

A central policy does not necessarily protect the sponsor if local practice is inconsistent.

Potential warning signs include:

 

• different teams retaining different evidence;
• some sites conducting checks before employment and others afterwards;
• local managers accepting immigration documents without verification;
• different systems being used to monitor visa expiry dates;
• unclear responsibility following internal transfers; and
• different escalation processes for immigration concerns.

 

Periodic internal auditing can help identify these inconsistencies before they become Home Office findings.

 

11. Corporate Changes, Acquisitions & TUPE

 

Immigration compliance can be overlooked during mergers, acquisitions, restructures and workforce transfers.

Employers should assess the right to work and sponsorship implications of corporate change rather than assuming that historic compliance automatically transfers without further action.

Particular issues can arise where:

 

• workers move between legal entities;
• sponsored workers transfer as part of a transaction;
• personnel records are incomplete;
• historic right to work evidence cannot be located;
• different HR systems are combined;
• sponsor licence reporting requirements arise; or
• responsibility for immigration compliance becomes unclear during integration.

 

For transferred employees, the applicable right to work requirements should be considered in the context of the particular transfer and current Home Office guidance.

See our guide to TUPE and right to work checks for further guidance.

 

12. Weak Record Retention

 

An organisation may have undertaken a check but still face difficulty demonstrating compliance if the required evidence was not retained appropriately.

Right to work and sponsor records should therefore be stored in a way that allows the organisation to retrieve them when required.

This becomes particularly important during a Home Office compliance visit or illegal working investigation, when the organisation may need to demonstrate what happened several years earlier.

Sponsors should ensure that their retention procedures comply with both the applicable right to work requirements and the sponsor record-keeping requirements.

 

13. Treating Contractors & Other Non-Standard Workers as Automatically Outside the Regime

 

Following the changes taking effect from 1 October 2026, organisations should review assumptions about workers who are not conventional employees.

The statutory right to work regime now extends to specified additional working arrangements, including certain worker contracts, individual subcontractors and specified online matching-service arrangements.

Organisations using contingent labour should therefore establish whether individuals fall within the current statutory checking regime rather than relying solely on the contractual label attached to the relationship.

For sponsor licence holders, unclear responsibility between HR, procurement and operational teams can create particular risk.

 

14. Correcting the Individual Case but Ignoring the System Failure

 

One of the most important compliance mistakes is to treat an illegal working incident solely as a problem with one employee.

Where the incident occurred because of a defective process, the sponsor should ask:

“Who else could have been affected by the same weakness?”

For example, if one follow-up check was missed because immigration expiry alerts were not being monitored, every worker relying on the same system may need to be reviewed.

If one sponsored employee was moved into a different role without immigration review, the organisation should consider whether managers have made similar changes involving other sponsored workers.

If one branch has failed to carry out checks correctly, the organisation should consider whether the same training or procedural problem exists at other locations.

The aim of remediation should therefore be to identify the root cause and determine the potential affected population rather than simply repairing the file that exposed the problem.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section N: Illegal Working Sponsor Risk Matrix

 

The sponsor licence consequences of an illegal working or right to work issue depend on the particular circumstances.

The following matrix provides a practical framework for assessing the potential level and nature of sponsor compliance risk. It is not a substitute for applying the current Home Office guidance to the facts of the individual case, particularly where a specific discretionary, will normally revoke or mandatory revocation ground may be engaged.

 

1. Sponsor Risk Matrix

 

Scenario	Indicative Sponsor Risk	Key Issue
Worker has correct permission and the appropriate right to work check was completed and retained	Lower	No apparent illegal working issue, subject to continuing compliance with any applicable immigration and sponsor conditions.
Worker has permission to undertake the work but the right to work check is missing or defective	Compliance risk	The worker may not be working illegally, but the organisation may lack the applicable statutory excuse and the failure can raise wider sponsor compliance concerns.
Required follow-up check was missed for a worker with time-limited permission	Potentially significant	The worker’s current immigration position must be established immediately, together with the reason the monitoring system failed.
Previous immigration permission has expired but a continuing right to work may exist because of an outstanding immigration process	Fact-sensitive	Do not assume either lawful or illegal working. Verify the position using the prescribed Home Office process, including the Employer Checking Service where applicable.
Worker has no permission to undertake the work and the appropriate check was not carried out	High	Potential civil penalty and serious sponsor enforcement risk. The facts may engage a ground under which the Home Office will normally revoke.
Sponsor knew or could reasonably have been aware that the worker lacked permission	Very high	Serious sponsor enforcement risk, with potential civil and, depending on the facts, criminal consequences.
Sponsored worker is undertaking work outside the conditions of their immigration permission	High	Potential illegal working and sponsor compliance consequences. Establish the precise restriction and work undertaken.
Sponsored worker is in a role that does not match the occupation code or job description on the CoS and the change is not permitted	Very high	Specified prohibited role mismatches can engage mandatory sponsor licence revocation provisions.
Non-sponsored worker is found to be working illegally	Potentially high	The incident can affect the sponsor licence and may cause the Home Office to investigate the organisation’s wider right to work systems.
Employer has a statutory excuse but a later immigration status concern arises	Separate assessment required	The statutory excuse and the sponsor compliance position should be assessed separately. An historic check should not be used to ignore credible later information.
No statutory excuse can be demonstrated but the worker actually had permission throughout	Compliance failure, but not necessarily illegal working	Distinguish the employer’s checking failure from the worker’s underlying immigration status.
First illegal working civil penalty	High	A first civil penalty can fall within circumstances where the Home Office may revoke the sponsor licence. Assess the precise enforcement provision.
Multiple or repeat illegal working civil penalties	Very high	Repeat enforcement can materially increase revocation and cooling-off risks and indicate systemic compliance failure.
Several worker files contain the same right to work deficiency	High	Suggests a systemic rather than isolated failure and can result in wider Home Office scrutiny.
Illegal working occurs after previous Home Office compliance action	Potentially very high	The Home Office may consider whether previous remediation was ineffective and whether the sponsor remains suitable to hold a licence.
Management knowingly permits illegal working to continue	Very high	Serious sponsor licence exposure and potential criminal liability depending on the statutory threshold and facts.
Potential illegal working is identified during a sponsor compliance visit	High	The Home Office can widen its investigation to other workers, systems and sponsor records.
Sponsor is not the direct employer but failed to ensure the sponsored worker’s right to work was checked	Significant sponsor compliance risk	A sponsor duty to carry out or ensure the appropriate check can apply regardless of the nature of the employment relationship.
Potential issue involving a worker, individual subcontractor or other arrangement brought within the right to work regime from 1 October 2026	Fact-sensitive	Establish whether the arrangement falls within the extended statutory regime and whether the applicable checking requirements were met.

 

2. Risk Driver One — The Worker’s Actual Immigration Position

 

The starting point is the individual’s underlying immigration position.

The sponsor should establish:

 

• whether the individual had immigration permission;
• whether that permission included a right to work;
• whether it permitted the particular work being undertaken;
• whether any restrictions were breached;
• whether the permission had expired;
• whether an outstanding application or other immigration process affected the position; and
• where the individual was sponsored, whether the work remained consistent with the basis of sponsorship.

 

This determines whether the case concerns actual illegal working, a right to work procedural failure, a sponsor compliance breach or some combination of these issues.

 

3. Risk Driver Two — Employer Knowledge & Conduct

 

The organisation’s knowledge and response can materially affect the seriousness of the incident.

A genuine administrative error discovered and addressed promptly presents a different compliance picture from an organisation knowingly allowing an individual to continue working without permission.

Relevant considerations can include:

 

• what information was available to the employer;
• whether appropriate checks were conducted;
• whether warning signs were ignored;
• when management became aware of the concern;
• whether work continued after that point;
• whether the organisation attempted to establish the correct immigration position;
• whether inaccurate records were created;
• whether information was concealed; and
• whether the organisation cooperated appropriately with Home Office enquiries.

 

Where management knowingly or deliberately permits illegal working, both sponsor enforcement and potential criminal consequences require consideration.

 

4. Risk Driver Three — Isolated or Systemic Failure

 

The Home Office may distinguish between an unusual individual error and evidence that the organisation’s compliance systems are fundamentally ineffective.

Indicators of systemic failure can include:

 

• multiple workers with missing checks;
• several missed follow-up checks;
• no reliable immigration expiry monitoring;
• different sites following inconsistent procedures;
• multiple sponsored role discrepancies;
• poor Sponsor Management System reporting;
• inadequate record keeping;
• untrained personnel conducting checks;
• unclear responsibility for immigration compliance; and
• management failing to oversee identified compliance risks.

 

This is why the discovery of one problem should generally trigger consideration of the wider affected population.

 

5. Risk Driver Four — Previous Compliance History

 

The organisation’s previous compliance history can significantly affect the risk assessment.

Relevant matters can include:

 

• previous illegal working civil penalties;
• previous sponsor licence suspension;
• previous compliance visits identifying deficiencies;
• previous sponsor downgrading or action plans;
• earlier warnings about right to work systems;
• previous revocation history; and
• whether earlier remedial commitments were implemented effectively.

 

A repeated failure can be particularly damaging where the organisation was previously put on notice of the same weakness.

Multiple civil penalties can also engage more serious sponsor enforcement and cooling-off consequences than a first penalty.

 

6. Use the Matrix to Determine the Response

 

The risk matrix should not be used simply to assign a label such as low, medium or high.

Its purpose is to determine what the organisation needs to do next.

A lower-risk administrative issue may require correction of records, process improvement and confirmation that the same problem does not affect other workers.

A potentially high-risk case may require immediate verification of the worker’s immigration position, preservation of evidence, an internal audit and assessment of sponsor reporting requirements.

A very high-risk case involving actual illegal working, management knowledge, repeat civil penalties or a potential mandatory revocation ground may require urgent specialist advice and preparation for possible Home Office enforcement.

The organisation should also revisit the risk assessment as further facts emerge.

An incident initially thought to involve illegal working may ultimately prove to be a right to work record-keeping failure. Conversely, an apparently minor missing document may reveal that the worker did not have permission to undertake the work and that the same weakness affects multiple individuals.

The central questions remain:

 

1. Was the individual legally permitted to undertake the work?
2. Did the organisation comply with the applicable right to work requirements?
3. What did the organisation know or reasonably have the ability to know?
4. Is the problem isolated or systemic?
5. What is the organisation’s previous compliance history?
6. Which sponsor enforcement provision is potentially engaged?
7. What immediate action is required to protect the sponsor licence?

 

For the current enforcement framework, refer to the Home Office Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors, Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section O: Illegal Working & Wider Sponsor Compliance Failures

 

An illegal working incident rarely exists in complete isolation from the systems used to manage the wider workforce.

For a sponsor licence holder, one of the most important questions is therefore whether the incident reveals additional failures in sponsor compliance.

The Home Office may look beyond the immediate worker to understand how the problem occurred, whether the same weakness affects other workers and whether the organisation remains capable of meeting its sponsor duties.

This can turn an individual right to work problem into a broader assessment of the sponsor’s HR systems, record keeping, reporting, monitoring and governance.

 

1. Illegal Working Can Be the Symptom Rather Than the Whole Problem

 

The discovery of an illegal worker is an outcome. The underlying compliance issue may have arisen much earlier.

For example, illegal working may result from:

 

• failure to carry out the appropriate initial right to work check;
• failure to identify restrictions attached to immigration permission;
• failure to record a time-limited right to work;
• failure to conduct a required follow-up check;
• failure to use the Employer Checking Service where appropriate;
• failure to monitor a sponsored worker;
• failure to identify a material change in sponsored employment;
• failure to report a relevant change;
• poor communication between operational management and the sponsor compliance team; or
• inadequate oversight of immigration compliance.

 

The sponsor should therefore investigate the process that allowed the problem to occur rather than focusing exclusively on the immigration status of the individual worker.

 

2. Recruitment Failures

 

Illegal working can expose weaknesses at the recruitment and onboarding stage.

The Home Office may be concerned where an organisation cannot demonstrate a reliable process for establishing right to work before an individual starts work.

Potential weaknesses include:

 

• checks being completed after employment begins;
• recruitment teams accepting inappropriate evidence;
• different checking processes being used across the organisation;
• no clear responsibility for completing the check;
• failure to identify work restrictions;
• poor record retention; and
• an assumption that sponsored workers do not require an appropriate right to work check.

 

Where these failures are systemic, the sponsor may need to review a wider population of workers rather than simply correcting the file that brought the issue to light.

 

3. Monitoring Failures

 

Where the individual originally had permission to work but subsequently became an illegal worker, the incident may indicate a failure in immigration monitoring.

A sponsor should consider whether the organisation had an effective mechanism for identifying and acting on time-limited immigration permission.

Relevant questions include:

 

• Was the immigration expiry date recorded correctly?
• Was responsibility for monitoring the date allocated to a specific person or team?
• Did the system generate an appropriate alert?
• Was the alert acted on?
• Was the worker contacted in sufficient time?
• Was evidence of a further immigration application obtained?
• Was Home Office verification sought where required?
• Did management allow the individual to continue working without establishing the position?

 

If the same monitoring system applies to other workers, those records may also require review.

 

4. Sponsor Reporting Failures

 

An illegal working concern involving a sponsored worker may also expose failures in Sponsor Management System reporting.

For example, the underlying facts may reveal that a change affecting the sponsored worker occurred but was not escalated to the sponsor’s key personnel and was therefore not assessed for reporting purposes.

This can create separate compliance concerns even where the organisation subsequently resolves the worker’s immediate immigration position.

The sponsor should therefore review whether any relevant event should have been reported and whether the same reporting weakness could affect other sponsored workers.

 

5. Record-Keeping Failures

 

Illegal working investigations can also expose deficiencies in sponsor record keeping.

The organisation may find that it cannot readily produce the documents and information needed to establish what happened.

Potential problems include:

 

• missing right to work evidence;
• incomplete sponsored worker files;
• missing employment contracts or job descriptions;
• inconsistent salary records;
• missing attendance information;
• poor records of changes in sponsored employment;
• inability to evidence historic Sponsor Management System action; and
• records being held inconsistently across different systems or locations.

 

Sponsors should review their document retention against the applicable sponsor requirements, including the Home Office’s Sponsor Guidance Appendix D.

 

6. Sponsored Role & Occupation Code Failures

 

Where the incident involves a sponsored worker, the sponsor should compare the work actually being undertaken with the basis on which the individual was sponsored.

This includes reviewing the Certificate of Sponsorship, occupation code, job description and actual day-to-day duties.

A discrepancy can indicate that:

 

• the role changed without immigration review;
• the original Certificate of Sponsorship did not accurately describe the role;
• operational managers changed the worker’s responsibilities without notifying the sponsor team;
• the worker moved into another position without the required immigration action; or
• the organisation does not have an effective process for monitoring sponsored employment.

 

This can be particularly serious because specified prohibited mismatches between the sponsored role and the work actually undertaken can engage mandatory sponsor licence revocation provisions.

 

7. Salary & Payroll Failures

 

The Home Office may also examine whether sponsored workers are being paid in accordance with the sponsorship arrangements and applicable immigration requirements.

Payroll information can therefore become relevant when an illegal working concern develops into a wider sponsor compliance investigation.

Differences between the salary stated for sponsorship purposes and actual remuneration may require explanation and can indicate additional sponsor compliance issues.

Employers should ensure that changes affecting sponsored salary are subject to appropriate immigration review rather than being treated solely as payroll or HR matters.

 

8. Attendance & Absence Monitoring Failures

 

Sponsors are required to maintain appropriate oversight of sponsored workers, including in relation to relevant attendance and absence issues.

An illegal working investigation may expose circumstances in which HR records, line management information and sponsor records do not correspond.

For example, the sponsor compliance team may be unaware that a sponsored worker has stopped attending a particular workplace, changed working arrangements or ceased employment.

Where operational information is not reaching the personnel responsible for sponsorship, the organisation should review its escalation processes.

 

9. Governance Failures

 

Serious or repeated illegal working incidents can raise questions about governance rather than simply administrative competence.

The Home Office may be concerned with matters such as:

 

• who has overall responsibility for immigration compliance;
• whether sponsor key personnel understand their duties;
• whether sufficient resources are allocated to compliance;
• whether senior management receives appropriate compliance information;
• whether problems are escalated effectively;
• whether internal audits are conducted;
• whether previous deficiencies have been remedied; and
• whether the organisation responds appropriately when compliance risks are identified.

 

A sponsor that has policies but does not implement them consistently may remain exposed.

Home Office scrutiny is ultimately concerned with how the organisation operates in practice.

 

10. The Compliance Chain

 

A useful way to understand illegal working risk is to view sponsor compliance as a connected chain:

Recruitment → Right to Work → Monitoring → Reporting → Record Keeping → Governance → Sponsor Suitability

A failure early in that chain can create consequences further along it.

For example, a defective recruitment check may result in an illegal worker entering the workforce. Poor monitoring may allow the situation to continue. Weak internal communication may prevent the sponsor team from becoming aware of the issue. Inadequate records may then make it difficult to establish what happened when the Home Office investigates.

The resulting sponsor licence risk is therefore greater than the original checking error considered in isolation.

 

11. Test the Wider Workforce After an Incident

 

Where a sponsor discovers illegal working, the internal investigation should identify the potential affected population.

The organisation should ask:

“If this happened once because of this particular process failure, where else could the same failure have occurred?”

Depending on the cause, this could require reviewing:

 

• all workers recruited during a particular period;
• workers processed by a particular recruitment team;
• workers at a particular site;
• all workers with time-limited immigration permission;
• all sponsored workers;
• workers affected by a particular HR system migration;
• workers transferred following a corporate transaction; or
• workers whose roles were changed by a particular business unit.

 

The scope should be determined by the identified failure rather than by an arbitrary sample size.

 

12. Document the Remediation

 

Where weaknesses are identified, sponsors should keep an appropriate record of the remedial work undertaken.

This can help demonstrate that the organisation has:

 

• identified the root cause;
• established the population potentially affected;
• reviewed relevant worker files;
• corrected deficiencies where possible;
• updated procedures;
• provided additional training;
• allocated responsibility for future compliance;
• introduced additional controls; and
• tested whether the changes are operating effectively.

 

Remediation does not remove a mandatory sponsor enforcement ground where one has already arisen, and it does not guarantee that the Home Office will take no action.

It can, however, be an important part of demonstrating the organisation’s current compliance position where the Home Office has discretion or is assessing the wider suitability of the sponsor.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section P: What Happens to Sponsored Workers if the Licence is Revoked?

 

Sponsor licence revocation can have serious consequences for workers being sponsored by the organisation.

It is not simply a restriction on the employer’s ability to recruit additional overseas workers.

Where a licence is revoked, the Home Office will normally take action affecting the immigration permission of workers being sponsored by that organisation, subject to the applicable Immigration Rules, sponsor guidance and the individual circumstances.

This means illegal working that ultimately results in revocation can affect employees who had no involvement in the original compliance breach.

 

1. The Sponsor Can No Longer Use the Licence

 

Revocation brings the sponsor’s authority to sponsor workers under the affected licence to an end.

The organisation will no longer be able to use that licence to sponsor new workers.

This can immediately affect:

 

• planned overseas recruitment;
• workers awaiting sponsorship;
• future Certificates of Sponsorship;
• immigration applications dependent on the organisation’s sponsorship;
• existing sponsored employees; and
• business activities dependent on access to sponsored labour.

 

The commercial consequences can therefore extend well beyond the original illegal working incident.

 

2. Existing Sponsored Workers Can Have Their Permission Cancelled

 

Where the sponsor licence is revoked, the Home Office will normally take action in relation to the immigration permission of workers being sponsored by the organisation.

Where a worker was not actively and knowingly involved in the reason for revocation and has more than 60 calendar days remaining, UKVI will normally shorten the worker’s permission so that 60 calendar days remain. Where the worker already has 60 calendar days or less remaining when cancellation action is considered, UKVI will not normally cancel or shorten the permission on this basis.

Where a worker was actively and knowingly involved in the reason for revocation, UKVI will normally cancel all remaining permission.

A temporary exception also applies in specified circumstances to certain sponsored adult social care workers where revocation would otherwise be the sole reason for cancellation.

Employers should avoid describing the effect as though every sponsored worker automatically loses immigration permission at the precise moment the licence is revoked.

Nevertheless, revocation creates a serious and immediate immigration risk for the sponsored workforce.

 

3. Workers May Need to Find a New Sponsor

 

An affected sponsored worker who wishes to continue working in the UK may need to obtain sponsorship from another licensed employer and make the appropriate immigration application, depending on their circumstances.

Whether this is possible will depend on matters including:

 

• the worker’s immigration route;
• their current immigration status;
• the action taken by the Home Office following revocation;
• whether another employer is willing and able to sponsor them;
• whether the proposed new role meets the applicable immigration requirements; and
• whether an application can be made within the relevant timeframe.

 

The existing employer cannot simply transfer its sponsorship authority to another organisation.

 

4. Workers Unconnected With the Breach Can Still Be Affected

 

One of the most significant consequences of sponsor licence revocation is that the effect is not necessarily confined to the worker whose circumstances triggered the enforcement action.

If an organisation loses its licence because of illegal working involving one worker or one part of the business, other sponsored workers can still be affected by the loss of sponsorship.

This can include workers who:

 

• have complied fully with their immigration conditions;
• work in entirely different departments;
• were sponsored correctly;
• had no knowledge of the compliance failure; and
• have worked lawfully throughout their employment.

 

This is one reason sponsor licence compliance should be regarded as an organisation-wide business risk.

 

5. Revocation Can Create Immediate Workforce Planning Problems

 

Where a business relies materially on sponsored workers, revocation can create significant operational disruption.

The organisation may need to assess:

 

• which workers are currently sponsored;
• which roles are business-critical;
• which projects depend on sponsored personnel;
• which immigration applications are pending;
• which planned recruits have not yet started;
• whether alternative workforce arrangements are available;
• the employment law implications of the immigration action; and
• how clients, regulators or other stakeholders may be affected.

 

These issues can arise rapidly, particularly where a large sponsored workforce is involved.

 

6. Employment & Immigration Issues Need to Be Managed Separately

 

Revocation creates immigration consequences, but employers should not assume that this automatically resolves every employment law question involving affected workers.

The organisation may need to consider both the employee’s immigration position and its contractual and employment law obligations.

Relevant issues can include:

 

• whether the employee currently retains a lawful right to work;
• the effect of any Home Office cancellation decision;
• whether continued employment is legally possible;
• the terms of the employment contract;
• dismissal procedures;
• notice and pay issues;
• potential alternative employment arrangements; and
• the timing of any employment action.

 

The correct approach will depend on the individual circumstances and should not be reduced to an assumption that licence revocation automatically requires immediate dismissal of every sponsored employee.

 

7. Pending Recruitment Can Also Be Disrupted

 

The impact of revocation can extend to individuals who have not yet started work.

Recruitment exercises involving sponsorship may be interrupted because the organisation no longer has the authority to sponsor workers under the revoked licence.

This can affect:

 

• candidates awaiting assignment of a Certificate of Sponsorship;
• individuals who have already been assigned sponsorship;
• pending immigration applications;
• workers preparing to relocate to the UK; and
• future recruitment campaigns dependent on sponsorship.

 

Assigned Certificates of Sponsorship become invalid following revocation. If a live immigration application continues to rely on sponsorship from the revoked sponsor and its basis is not varied before decision, the Home Office will refuse it. Where entry clearance has already been granted but the worker has not yet travelled to the UK when the licence is revoked, the entry clearance will be cancelled.

 

8. Revocation Can Affect the Organisation’s Ability to Return to Sponsorship

 

Revocation can also prevent the organisation from immediately applying for another sponsor licence.

The applicable cooling-off period depends on the circumstances and the relevant provisions of the current sponsor guidance.

Under the sponsor enforcement framework, a general cooling-off period can apply following revocation, with longer periods possible in specified circumstances.

For example, previous revocation history can increase the period before a further application can succeed, while specified serious or repeated illegal working civil penalty circumstances can result in substantially longer restrictions.

Depending on the particular history and enforcement ground, relevant periods can extend from the general 12-month position to 24 months following repeated revocation and, in specified multiple civil penalty circumstances, potentially considerably longer, including up to five years.

The precise period should always be checked against the current sponsor guidance because the applicable outcome depends on the particular revocation and enforcement history.

 

9. The Wider Workforce Consequences Increase the Importance of Early Intervention

 

The effect of revocation on sponsored workers demonstrates why an illegal working problem should be addressed before it develops into wider sponsor enforcement wherever possible.

Once a potential breach is identified, the organisation should determine:

 

• whether illegal working has actually occurred;
• whether the issue affects other workers;
• whether a civil penalty may arise;
• whether a sponsor enforcement ground is potentially engaged;
• whether any sponsored worker is undertaking an impermissible role;
• whether required reports have been made;
• whether immediate remediation is possible; and
• whether the organisation should prepare for Home Office investigation.

 

Protecting the sponsor licence can therefore be critical not only to future recruitment but also to protecting the immigration position and continuity of the existing sponsored workforce.

For detailed guidance on the consequences and process, see our guide to sponsor licence revocation.

The Home Office’s current sponsor enforcement provisions are set out in Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors, Part 3: Sponsor Duties and Compliance.

 

 

Back to top

 

Section Q: How DavidsonMorris Can Help

 

Illegal working allegations can expose sponsor licence holders to several forms of risk at the same time.

An organisation may need to establish an individual’s immigration status, assess its right to work position, determine whether a statutory excuse exists, respond to civil penalty action and protect its sponsor licence simultaneously.

DavidsonMorris advises employers on the immigration compliance and sponsor licence issues arising from suspected or confirmed illegal working.

 

1. Urgent Illegal Working Incidents

 

Where an organisation discovers that an employee, worker or other individual may not have permission to undertake the work they are doing, early action can be important.

DavidsonMorris can help employers establish the relevant immigration and sponsor compliance position, identify immediate risks and determine the appropriate response.

This can include reviewing:

 

• the individual’s immigration status;
• right to work evidence;
• the circumstances in which work commenced;
• subsequent immigration applications or changes;
• sponsorship records;
• the individual’s actual role and duties;
• relevant Sponsor Management System activity;
• potential reporting requirements; and
• the applicable sponsor enforcement provisions.

 

The objective is to establish the facts before decisions are made about the worker, communications with the Home Office or the organisation’s wider sponsor response.

 

2. Civil Penalty & Sponsor Licence Risk

 

For sponsor licence holders, a civil penalty should be assessed in the context of the wider licence risk.

DavidsonMorris can advise on the relationship between the illegal working allegation, the employer’s right to work records and the organisation’s sponsor compliance position.

This can include identifying whether the circumstances fall within a sponsor enforcement ground under which the Home Office may revoke, will normally revoke or must revoke the licence.

Where appropriate, the response can also consider whether the organisation has grounds to challenge the civil penalty while separately addressing any sponsor compliance weaknesses exposed by the incident.

 

3. Internal Compliance Investigations

 

Where an individual incident suggests a wider problem, DavidsonMorris can support employers in determining the appropriate scope of an internal investigation.

This may involve reviewing:

 

• other right to work files;
• workers with time-limited permission;
• sponsored worker records;
• visa expiry monitoring;
• sponsored roles against Certificates of Sponsorship;
• Sponsor Management System reporting;
• HR procedures;
• operational management practices;
• contractor or contingent worker arrangements; and
• sponsor licence governance.

 

The purpose is not simply to identify additional errors. It is to establish the root cause of the original failure and determine whether the same weakness could affect other workers.

 

4. Sponsor Licence Compliance Audits

 

A sponsor compliance audit can help identify weaknesses before they are discovered by the Home Office.

Audits can examine how the organisation’s documented procedures operate in practice, including:

 

• recruitment;
• right to work checking;
• time-limited immigration monitoring;
• sponsored worker monitoring;
• record keeping;
• reporting;
• role changes;
• salary and payroll compliance;
• management escalation; and
• internal governance.

 

Where weaknesses are identified, remediation can then be prioritised according to risk.

 

5. Home Office Compliance Visits

 

Where the Home Office has announced a compliance visit, or an organisation is concerned that a visit may follow an illegal working incident, preparation can be critical.

DavidsonMorris can help employers assess their current compliance position, identify areas likely to attract Home Office scrutiny and prepare relevant personnel and records for inspection.

Where a visit has already taken place, we can assist in assessing the findings and responding to subsequent Home Office correspondence.

See our guide to UKVI compliance visits for further information.

 

6. Sponsor Licence Suspension

 

If an illegal working issue contributes to suspension of the sponsor licence, the response needs to address the specific Home Office allegations and supporting evidence.

DavidsonMorris can assist with:

 

• analysing the suspension decision;
• identifying the relevant sponsor guidance;
• reviewing the Home Office’s factual allegations;
• gathering supporting evidence;
• investigating underlying compliance failures;
• documenting remediation;
• assessing any civil penalty implications; and
• preparing representations addressing the Home Office’s concerns.

 

The objective is to respond to both the individual allegations and the wider question of whether the organisation remains capable of complying with its sponsor duties.

See our guide to sponsor licence suspension.

 

7. Sponsor Licence Revocation Risk

 

Where the Home Office is considering revocation, the stakes can be particularly high.

DavidsonMorris can advise on:

 

• the precise revocation ground relied on;
• whether the ground is discretionary, will normally revoke or mandatory;
• the factual basis of the Home Office allegation;
• whether the sponsor guidance has been applied correctly;
• the available response;
• the consequences for existing sponsored workers;
• potential cooling-off restrictions; and
• the wider operational implications for the organisation.

 

For businesses dependent on sponsored workers, the response should consider both the immigration law position and the potential consequences of licence loss for business continuity.

See our guide to sponsor licence revocation.

 

8. Compliance Remediation

 

Where genuine weaknesses are identified, effective remediation needs to go beyond rewriting a policy.

DavidsonMorris can support employers in developing practical improvements to:

 

• right to work controls;
• immigration expiry monitoring;
• sponsored worker monitoring;
• Sponsor Management System reporting;
• record keeping;
• manager escalation procedures;
• sponsored role-change controls;
• compliance training;
• key personnel oversight;
• contractor and contingent worker processes; and
• internal audit arrangements.

 

The aim is to create systems that operate effectively in practice and can withstand Home Office scrutiny.

 

9. Managing Illegal Working & Sponsorship as One Compliance Risk

 

Illegal working cases can become fragmented where different teams deal separately with employment, right to work, sponsorship and Home Office enforcement.

For licensed sponsors, these issues often need to be considered together.

DavidsonMorris helps employers assess the complete compliance position, from the individual worker’s immigration status through to the potential consequences for the sponsor licence and wider workforce.

Where an illegal working concern has already arisen, early investigation can help establish the scale of the problem, contain further risk and put the organisation in a stronger position to respond to Home Office scrutiny.

 

Back to top

 

Section R: Conclusion

 

Illegal working presents an additional layer of risk for organisations that hold a sponsor licence.

For any employer or organisation within the scope of the statutory right to work regime, engaging someone who does not have permission to undertake the work can result in significant immigration enforcement consequences. For a licensed sponsor, the same incident can also raise questions about whether the organisation is meeting its sponsor duties and remains suitable to participate in the sponsorship system.

This is why illegal working should not be treated solely as a right to work or civil penalty issue.

A potential breach may require the organisation to consider separately:

 

• the worker’s actual immigration status;
• whether they were permitted to undertake the work;
• whether the prescribed right to work process was followed;
• whether the employer has a statutory excuse;
• whether civil or criminal illegal working exposure arises;
• whether any sponsor duties have been breached;
• whether a Sponsor Management System report is required;
• whether the worker’s actual role remains consistent with any sponsorship;
• whether the incident exposes wider compliance weaknesses;
• whether a civil penalty affects the sponsor licence; and
• whether the relevant sponsor enforcement ground is discretionary, will normally revoke or mandatory.

 

The distinction between an illegal worker and a defective right to work check is particularly important.

A worker may have lawful permission even where the employer’s checking process was deficient. Conversely, the existence of an historic right to work check does not entitle an employer to ignore later information showing or reasonably indicating that the worker may no longer be permitted to undertake the work.

Sponsor licence holders should also remember that the risk is not confined to sponsored workers.

Illegal working elsewhere in the workforce can cause the Home Office to question whether the organisation has effective immigration controls and whether those same weaknesses affect its sponsored population.

Similarly, the sponsor’s responsibilities can extend to sponsored workers even where the sponsor is not itself the direct employer or engager.

The changes taking effect from 1 October 2026 also mean organisations need to consider specified working arrangements beyond conventional employment when assessing their right to work compliance obligations.

Where a problem is discovered, speed needs to be combined with accuracy.

The employer should apply the following framework:

STOP → VERIFY → PRESERVE → ASSESS → REPORT → REMEDIATE → PREPARE

This means controlling the immediate risk, establishing the worker’s actual immigration position, preserving evidence, assessing the different areas of exposure, meeting any applicable reporting requirements, addressing the underlying cause and preparing for potential Home Office scrutiny.

Most importantly, the organisation should look beyond the individual file.

An illegal working incident can be a symptom of wider weaknesses in recruitment, right to work checking, visa expiry monitoring, sponsor reporting, record keeping, sponsored role management, management communication or governance.

For a licensed sponsor, the central question is therefore not simply whether an illegal worker has been identified.

It is whether the organisation can demonstrate that it has the systems, oversight and compliance culture required to continue being trusted with a sponsor licence.

Where the facts engage a ground under which the Home Office will normally revoke or must revoke, the risk can be immediate and severe. Where the Home Office retains discretion, early investigation and credible remediation can still be important in demonstrating the organisation’s current compliance position.

Employers facing a suspected illegal working issue should therefore assess the civil penalty, right to work and sponsor licence consequences together while keeping the legal tests for each regime distinct.

 

Back to top

 

Section S: Illegal Working & Sponsor Licence FAQs

 

Can employing an illegal worker affect a sponsor licence?

Yes. Illegal working can affect an organisation’s sponsor licence as well as exposing the employer to action under the illegal working regime.

The Home Office may consider what the incident demonstrates about the organisation’s compliance systems, sponsor duties and continued suitability to hold a sponsor licence.

The precise outcome depends on the facts and on the sponsor enforcement provision engaged. Depending on the circumstances, the Home Office may have discretion to revoke, may normally revoke or may be required to revoke the licence.

 

Can one illegal worker cause a sponsor licence to be revoked?

Potentially, yes.

There is no general rule that a sponsor licence is safe simply because only one worker is involved.

A single case can present serious licence risk where, for example:

 

• the worker had no permission to undertake the work;
• the appropriate right to work check was not carried out;
• the sponsor knew or could reasonably have been aware of the problem;
• the worker was sponsored but was working outside permitted conditions;
• a prohibited sponsored role mismatch exists; or
• the facts engage a sponsor enforcement ground carrying revocation consequences.

 

The correct outcome depends on the specific breach and applicable Home Office guidance.

 

Does a statutory excuse protect the sponsor licence?

Not necessarily.

A statutory excuse protects an employer against civil penalty liability where the prescribed right to work requirements have been met.

It does not automatically resolve every sponsor compliance issue.

The Home Office may still need to consider whether separate sponsor duties were complied with, including relevant monitoring, record-keeping, reporting and sponsored worker obligations.

The civil penalty position and sponsor compliance position should therefore be assessed separately.

 

Can a sponsor have a right to work duty even if it is not the direct employer?

Yes.

Current Home Office sponsor guidance requires a sponsor to carry out, or ensure that the appropriate right to work check is carried out, for a worker it sponsors regardless of the nature of the employment relationship.

This means a sponsor can have a separate sponsorship duty even where another organisation is the direct employer or engager.

This is one reason why the statutory excuse and sponsor compliance regimes should not be treated as interchangeable.

 

Can a non-sponsored worker put our sponsor licence at risk?

Potentially, yes.

The Home Office’s assessment of a licensed sponsor is not confined to sponsored employees.

Illegal working involving a non-sponsored worker can expose weaknesses in recruitment, right to work checking, immigration monitoring or wider HR systems.

Those weaknesses may cause the Home Office to examine whether the organisation is capable of meeting its sponsor duties more generally.

 

What if the worker had permission to work but our right to work check was defective?

A defective right to work check does not necessarily mean that the individual was working illegally.

The employer should distinguish between:

 

• the worker’s actual immigration status;
• whether that status permitted the work;
• whether the prescribed checking process was followed;
• whether a statutory excuse exists; and
• whether separate sponsor compliance failures arose.

 

A worker may have lawful permission even where the employer’s checking process was deficient.

However, the compliance failure can still be significant for a sponsor, particularly if it indicates wider weaknesses in the organisation’s systems.

 

Can a sponsored worker be working illegally even if their visa is still valid?

Potentially, yes.

Having valid immigration permission does not necessarily mean that every form of work is permitted.

The relevant question is whether the individual’s immigration conditions allow the particular work being undertaken.

Where a sponsored worker’s duties, role or working arrangements have changed, the sponsor should assess whether the change is permitted and whether any immigration or sponsor action is required.

 

Can a sponsored role mismatch lead to mandatory revocation?

Yes, in specified circumstances.

Current Home Office sponsor guidance contains mandatory revocation provisions where a sponsored worker is found to be working in a role that does not match the occupation code or job description recorded on the Certificate of Sponsorship and the change is not permitted under the sponsorship rules.

This is why material changes to sponsored roles should be reviewed before implementation rather than treated solely as internal HR decisions.

 

Can the Home Office check for illegal working during a sponsor compliance visit?

Yes.

A sponsor compliance visit can involve scrutiny of the organisation’s HR and immigration compliance systems, including right to work records and sponsored worker arrangements.

If potential illegal working is identified, the Home Office may investigate the individual case and consider whether the issue indicates wider failures.

This can lead to scrutiny of additional worker files, sponsorship records, monitoring systems and internal governance.

 

What happens if an employee’s visa appears to have expired?

The employer should establish the individual’s actual immigration position immediately.

The expiry date shown on a previous grant of permission does not necessarily determine whether the individual can continue working.

Depending on the circumstances, an in-time immigration application or other process may preserve the individual’s immigration status or right to work.

The employer should use the appropriate Home Office checking process, including the Employer Checking Service where applicable, rather than assuming either that the worker can continue or that they have automatically become an illegal worker.

 

Does sponsorship prove that an employee has the right to work?

No.

A Certificate of Sponsorship is not immigration permission and does not by itself prove that the individual has a current right to undertake the employment.

The sponsor must ensure that the worker has the relevant immigration permission and that the appropriate right to work requirements are satisfied.

 

Does a civil penalty automatically mean the sponsor licence will be revoked?

No.

A civil penalty and sponsor licence revocation are separate enforcement consequences.

However, a first civil penalty can fall within circumstances in which the Home Office may revoke the sponsor licence, while repeated or more serious illegal working findings can create substantially greater revocation risk.

The sponsor should therefore assess the licence consequences as soon as a civil penalty issue arises.

 

Can paying a civil penalty prevent further sponsor action?

No.

Paying a civil penalty addresses the financial sanction but does not necessarily resolve separate sponsor compliance concerns.

The Home Office may still consider whether the underlying conduct engages sponsor enforcement provisions.

Licensed sponsors should therefore assess the civil penalty and sponsor licence consequences together.

 

How much is the civil penalty for illegal working?

The maximum civil penalty is currently £60,000 per illegal worker.

The amount actually imposed depends on the applicable civil penalty framework and the circumstances of the case.

Where several workers are involved, the total financial exposure can therefore become substantial.

For detailed guidance on penalty calculation, objections and appeals, see our guide to civil penalties for illegal working.

 

Can illegal working result in criminal prosecution?

Yes, where the applicable criminal threshold is met.

Knowingly employing an illegal worker, or employing someone where there is reasonable cause to believe that they are disqualified from employment because of their immigration status, can result in criminal prosecution.

The offence can carry an unlimited fine and imprisonment for up to five years.

Criminal liability is distinct from civil penalty liability and from sponsor licence enforcement.

 

What should we do if we suspect someone is working illegally?

The organisation should establish the facts promptly rather than making assumptions.

A practical framework is:

STOP → VERIFY → PRESERVE → ASSESS → REPORT → REMEDIATE → PREPARE

The employer should control the immediate risk, verify the worker’s immigration position, preserve relevant evidence, assess right to work and sponsor exposure, identify any reporting obligations, correct underlying weaknesses and prepare for potential Home Office scrutiny.

 

Should we dismiss an employee immediately if their right to work is in doubt?

Not necessarily.

A suspected right to work problem should be investigated promptly, but the correct response depends on the individual’s actual immigration position and the circumstances.

There may be prescribed methods of verifying continuing permission, including the Employer Checking Service where applicable.

Employment law considerations can also arise.

Equally, an employer should not simply allow work to continue indefinitely where credible information indicates that the individual may not have permission to undertake it.

 

What if the problem affects several workers?

Multiple similar failures can indicate a systemic compliance problem and should generally be treated as a more serious sponsor risk.

The organisation should identify the common cause and determine the population potentially affected.

This may require a broader internal audit of right to work records, immigration expiry monitoring, sponsored worker files, sponsored roles and related HR processes.

 

Can illegal working result in sponsor licence suspension?

Yes.

Where the circumstances raise sufficiently serious sponsor compliance concerns, the Home Office may suspend the sponsor licence while it investigates and determines what action should follow.

However, depending on the facts, the applicable sponsor guidance may also place the case directly within a revocation category.

A suspension should therefore be treated as a serious regulatory event.

 

What happens to sponsored workers if the sponsor licence is revoked?

Where the sponsor licence is revoked, the Home Office will normally take action affecting the immigration permission of workers being sponsored by the organisation.

Where a worker was not actively and knowingly involved in the reason for revocation and has more than 60 calendar days remaining, UKVI will normally shorten the worker’s permission so that 60 calendar days remain. Where the worker already has 60 calendar days or less remaining when cancellation action is considered, UKVI will not normally cancel or shorten the permission on this basis. Where a worker was actively and knowingly involved, UKVI will normally cancel all remaining permission.

A temporary exception also applies in specified circumstances to certain sponsored adult social care workers where revocation would otherwise be the sole reason for cancellation.

Affected workers may need to obtain alternative sponsorship or establish another lawful basis for remaining and working in the UK.

Revocation can therefore create serious workforce and business continuity consequences even for sponsored workers who had no involvement in the original compliance breach.

 

Can revocation stop us applying for another sponsor licence?

Yes.

Revocation can result in a cooling-off period during which a new sponsor licence application will not succeed.

The applicable period depends on the reason for revocation and the organisation’s enforcement history.

Depending on the circumstances, the period can extend beyond the general 12-month position, including longer periods following repeated revocation or specified serious illegal working enforcement.

The precise period should be checked against the current sponsor guidance.

 

Did the right to work rules change on 1 October 2026?

Yes.

From 1 October 2026, the statutory right to work regime was extended to specified working arrangements beyond conventional employment, including certain worker contracts, individual subcontractors and specified online matching-service arrangements.

Organisations using non-standard labour should therefore review whether the new rules apply to their workforce and contractual arrangements.

See the current Home Office Right to Work Checks: An Employer’s Guide for the detailed requirements.

 

Back to top

 

Section T: Glossary

 

Term	Meaning
Authorising Officer	The senior person responsible for the sponsor licence within the organisation. The Authorising Officer has overall responsibility for the sponsor’s compliance with its sponsorship duties and for the activities of those using the Sponsor Management System on the organisation’s behalf.
Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS)	An electronic sponsorship record assigned by a licensed sponsor to an eligible worker. A Certificate of Sponsorship is not a visa and does not, by itself, give an individual permission to work in the UK.
Civil Penalty	A financial penalty that can be imposed under the illegal working regime where the statutory requirements for liability are met and the organisation cannot establish the applicable statutory excuse. The maximum civil penalty is currently £60,000 per illegal worker.
Compliance Visit	A Home Office assessment of an organisation’s compliance with its sponsor duties and the requirements of the sponsorship system. A visit may involve reviewing records, systems and working practices and speaking to relevant personnel and workers.
Employer Checking Service (ECS)	A Home Office service that employers can use in prescribed circumstances to verify an individual’s right to work where this cannot be established through the standard document-based or online checking process.
Illegal Working	Working in circumstances where an individual’s immigration status does not permit them to undertake the work in question. This can include working without immigration permission or undertaking work prohibited by, or outside the restrictions attached to, that permission.
Immigration Permission	The legal permission allowing a person subject to immigration control to enter or remain in the UK. The conditions attached to that permission determine whether and on what basis the individual is permitted to work.
Key Personnel	The individuals appointed to specified roles for the operation and oversight of a sponsor licence. These include the Authorising Officer, Key Contact and Level 1 User.
Level 1 User	A person authorised to undertake specified activities through the Sponsor Management System on behalf of the sponsor. Level 1 Users have significant responsibility for the practical administration of the sponsor licence.
Mandatory Revocation	A sponsor enforcement outcome where the applicable Home Office guidance requires revocation once the relevant ground has been established. Where a mandatory revocation ground applies, subsequent mitigation or remediation does not convert the consequence into a discretionary one.
Positive Verification Notice (PVN)	Confirmation issued through the Employer Checking Service that an individual has a right to work for the period and in the circumstances specified in the notice.
Right to Work	An individual’s legal entitlement to undertake work in the UK. Some people have an unrestricted right to work, while others may have permission that is subject to time limits or restrictions.
Right to Work Check	The prescribed process used to establish whether an individual has the right to undertake the work in question. Depending on the circumstances, this can involve a Home Office online check, an eligible document-based check or verification through the Employer Checking Service.
Sponsor	An organisation licensed by the Home Office to sponsor eligible overseas workers under relevant UK immigration routes.
Sponsor Duties	The obligations imposed on organisations holding a sponsor licence. These include requirements relating to record keeping, reporting, monitoring sponsored workers and compliance with the wider requirements of the sponsorship system and UK immigration law.
Sponsor Licence	The Home Office authorisation allowing an eligible organisation to sponsor overseas workers under applicable sponsored work routes.
Sponsor Licence Downgrade	Home Office action that can result in a sponsor’s licence rating being reduced, potentially requiring the organisation to complete an action plan and take specified remedial measures.
Sponsor Licence Revocation	The withdrawal of an organisation’s sponsor licence by the Home Office. Revocation removes the organisation’s ability to sponsor workers under the affected licence and can lead to Home Office action affecting existing sponsored workers.
Sponsor Licence Suspension	Home Office action restricting the use of a sponsor licence while concerns about the sponsor are investigated or considered. Suspension can ultimately result in reinstatement, other compliance action or revocation depending on the circumstances.
Sponsor Management System (SMS)	The online system used by licensed sponsors to administer their sponsor licence, assign Certificates of Sponsorship and make required reports and notifications to the Home Office.
Sponsored Worker	An individual whose immigration permission is based on sponsorship by a licensed sponsor under an applicable sponsored work route.
Statutory Excuse	Protection against liability for an illegal working civil penalty that an employer may establish by carrying out the prescribed right to work requirements correctly and within the required timeframe. A statutory excuse does not itself create immigration permission for the worker and should not be treated as an automatic defence to separate sponsor compliance action.
Time-Limited Right to Work	A right to work that exists only for a specified period or while particular immigration conditions apply. Depending on the circumstances, further verification may be required for the employer to maintain the applicable statutory excuse.
‘May Revoke’	A sponsor enforcement category where the Home Office has discretion to revoke the sponsor licence if the applicable ground is established.
‘Will Normally Revoke’	A sponsor enforcement category where current Home Office guidance provides that revocation will normally follow if the relevant ground is established. This creates a substantially more serious starting position than a purely discretionary revocation ground.

 

Back to top

 

Section U: Useful Links

 

Employers dealing with illegal working and sponsor licence compliance should work from current Home Office guidance because the relevant right to work, sponsorship and enforcement rules can change.

 

Description	URL
GOV.UK — Right to Work Checks: An Employer’s Guide Home Office guidance on conducting right to work checks, using the prescribed checking processes and establishing a statutory excuse against illegal working civil penalty liability.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-to-work-checks-employers-guide
GOV.UK — Code of Practice on Preventing Illegal Working Home Office guidance on the civil penalty regime, statutory excuse and the rules applying to employers and other organisations within the scope of the illegal working regime.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-working-penalties-codes-of-practice-for-employers
GOV.UK — Check a Job Applicant’s Right to Work The Home Office online service used to check an individual’s right to work where the person provides the required share code.	https://www.gov.uk/view-right-to-work
GOV.UK — Employer Checking Service Government information on using the Employer Checking Service where an individual’s right to work cannot be established through the standard online or document-based process and the applicable conditions are met.	https://www.gov.uk/employee-immigration-employment-status
GOV.UK — Workers & Temporary Workers: Sponsor Guidance Part 3 The principal Home Office guidance on sponsor duties, compliance and enforcement, including illegal working, sponsor licence suspension and revocation consequences.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/workers-and-temporary-workers-guidance-for-sponsors-part-3-sponsor-duties-and-compliance
GOV.UK — Workers & Temporary Workers: Sponsor Guidance The wider Home Office collection of guidance for organisations sponsoring workers under the Worker and Temporary Worker routes.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/workers-and-temporary-workers-guidance-for-sponsors
GOV.UK — Sponsor Guidance Appendix D: Record Keeping Home Office guidance setting out the records sponsors are required to keep in relation to their sponsored workers and sponsor licence.	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keep-records-for-sponsorship-appendix-d
GOV.UK — Sponsorship Information for Employers The government’s central collection of sponsorship guidance and information for organisations using the sponsor licensing system.	https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sponsorship-information-for-employers-and-educators
GOV.UK — Sponsor a Worker Government information and services relating to sponsoring overseas workers to work in the UK.	https://www.gov.uk/uk-visa-sponsorship-employers
GOV.UK — Report Immigration Crime Government information on reporting suspected illegal working and other immigration offences.	https://www.gov.uk/report-immigration-crime
DavidsonMorris — Right to Work Employer guidance on managing right to work obligations and the wider compliance framework.	https://www.davidsonmorris.com/right-to-work/
DavidsonMorris — Right to Work Checks Detailed guidance on conducting compliant right to work checks and retaining the required evidence.	https://www.davidsonmorris.com/right-to-work-checks/
DavidsonMorris — Preventing Illegal Working Employer guidance on preventing illegal working across the workforce and operating effective right to work compliance systems.	https://www.davidsonmorris.com/prevention-of-illegal-working/
DavidsonMorris — Civil Penalties for Illegal Working Guidance on civil penalty liability, statutory excuses, Home Office enforcement, objections and appeals.	https://www.davidsonmorris.com/civil-penalty-immigration/
DavidsonMorris — Sponsor Duties & Compliance Guidance for licensed sponsors on their ongoing Home Office duties and the systems required to maintain sponsor compliance.	https://www.davidsonmorris.com/sponsor-duties-and-compliance/
DavidsonMorris — UKVI Compliance Visits Guidance on Home Office sponsor compliance visits, the areas UKVI can examine and preparing for scrutiny.	https://www.davidsonmorris.com/ukvi-compliance-visit/
DavidsonMorris — Sponsor Licence Suspension Guidance on sponsor licence suspension, responding to Home Office allegations and preparing representations.	https://www.davidsonmorris.com/sponsor-licence-suspension/
DavidsonMorris — Sponsor Licence Revocation Guidance on sponsor licence revocation, the consequences for the organisation and its sponsored workforce and the issues employers need to consider following Home Office enforcement.	https://www.davidsonmorris.com/sponsor-licence-revocation/
DavidsonMorris — TUPE & Right to Work Guidance on right to work compliance where employees transfer following a TUPE transfer or other relevant workforce change.	https://www.davidsonmorris.com/tupe-right-to-work/

 

Current guidance should always be checked before taking action. Illegal working can engage separate right to work, civil penalty, criminal, sponsor compliance and employment law issues, and the correct response depends on the facts of the individual case.

 

Back to top