Home Office updates to sponsor guidance in March and April 2026 have introduced a more demanding compliance framework for organisations holding a sponsor licence. The changes affect right to work checks, how sponsored workers’ salary is assessed and evidenced, and how workforce arrangements are viewed during compliance activity.
These updates have been made through guidance rather than legislation, and the statutory framework has not been expanded in parallel. HR teams are therefore working within a position where legal requirements and sponsor expectations do not fully align. In practical terms, that gap increases the importance of internal processes, documentation and consistency across the organisation, and does have the effect of increasing overall compliance risk exposure.
Expansion of right to work expectations
The March 2026 guidance introduced a requirement for sponsors to carry out right to work checks on individuals “engaged” by the organisation. That wording created uncertainty because it suggested a wider scope than employees but did not define the term.
The April 2026 update replaced this with “directly engaged” individuals. The intention was to narrow the position, but the guidance still does not provide a clear boundary. As a result, HR teams are now expected to assess whether individuals fall within scope based on how they are engaged in practice rather than how they are described contractually.
Checks remain required for sponsored workers and employees. The change lies in the expectation that checks may also be needed for contractors, consultants and certain casual arrangements where the organisation contracts directly with the individual.
The statutory excuse regime continues to apply to employees only. A compliant right to work check carried out before employment begins provides protection against a civil penalty if illegal working is identified.
Sponsor duties now operate on a wider basis. An organisation can meet the statutory excuse requirements for its employees and still be found non-compliant under sponsor guidance. The focus has shifted from a narrow legal test to a broader assessment of whether the organisation’s approach to right to work compliance is effective across its workforce.
For HR teams, this means that right to work checks can no longer be treated purely as an onboarding step for employees. They form part of a wider compliance framework linked to sponsor licence risk.
The updated guidance also links right to work compliance more directly to sponsor licence action. Revocation grounds now include situations where an organisation is found to be employing or engaging an individual who does not have the right to work.
This is not limited to sponsored workers. The Home Office will look at the organisation’s wider workforce and assess whether appropriate checks and controls are in place. Revocation is described as the normal outcome in such cases, subject to the circumstances.
For HR, the practical implication is that right to work compliance is no longer a discrete legal requirement. It is a core part of sponsor licence risk management.
Increased scrutiny of salary compliance
The March and April updates also coincide with a more detailed approach to salary assessment. The Home Office is focusing on whether sponsored workers are being paid correctly in line with the Immigration Rules and the details recorded on the Certificate of Sponsorship.
Salary is no longer viewed as a static annual figure. Compliance is assessed against actual pay received, supported by payroll records and working hours. HR teams are increasingly being asked to provide evidence that salary thresholds are met in practice.
Any discrepancies between contractual salary, reported salary and actual payments can lead to compliance concerns. This includes situations where salary fluctuates or where working patterns are not consistent.
Pay period rules and payroll alignment
Linked to salary scrutiny is a greater focus on how pay is calculated over defined pay periods. The Home Office will assess whether the worker meets the required salary level based on what they are actually paid during those periods.
Where pay is calculated on an hourly basis, or where hours vary, HR teams need to ensure that the equivalent salary meets the relevant threshold. Irregular hours, unpaid leave and deductions all affect how compliance is assessed.
This creates a closer connection between HR, payroll and sponsorship functions. Salary compliance can no longer be assessed by reference to contract terms alone. It needs to be supported by accurate and consistent payroll data.
Practical impact on workforce arrangements
The updated guidance requires HR teams to take a broader view of the workforce. The key issue is how individuals are engaged in reality. Contractor relationships that are ongoing or embedded within the organisation are more likely to fall within scope than one-off or remote service providers.
Secondments and arrangements involving intermediaries also require careful assessment. The level of control exercised by the organisation and the day-to-day working relationship will be relevant factors.
Labels such as contractor, consultant or outsourced provider are not determinative. The Home Office is likely to look at the substance of the arrangement when assessing compliance.
What HR teams should be doing now
HR teams should review right to work processes with a focus on how individuals are engaged across the organisation. Checks should continue to be carried out for employees and sponsored workers as a baseline requirement.
Additional consideration is needed for individuals engaged directly outside employment structures. Each arrangement should be assessed on its facts, with a clear record of the reasoning behind the decision taken.
Salary and payroll processes should also be reviewed to ensure that they align with sponsorship requirements. Records need to demonstrate that sponsored workers are being paid correctly over time, not just on paper.
Consistency across departments is critical. Hiring managers and operational teams need to understand how the updated guidance affects different types of engagement. Without that understanding, compliance is likely to become fragmented.
Author
Gill Laing is a qualified Legal Researcher & Analyst with niche specialisms in Law, Tax, Human Resources, Immigration & Employment Law.
Gill is a Multiple Business Owner and the Managing Director of Prof Services - a Marketing & Content Agency for the Professional Services Sector.
