For HR teams, right to work compliance has entered a different phase. The move to digital immigration status has changed not only how checks are carried out, but how failures are assessed when the Home Office reviews an employer’s processes.
Although the underlying rules have not changed, HR functions are now operating in an environment where digital right to work checks are routinely tested for robustness, consistency and follow-through. Issues that were once treated as administrative friction are now being treated as indicators of wider compliance weakness.
In practical terms, this means the Home Office audits are now finding more employers to be in breach of their obligations due to failures in digital right to work checks.
From document checks to system accountability
Historically, right to work compliance in HR was document-led. Checks were completed, copied, filed and largely closed. The shift to eVisas and online share codes has replaced that model with a system-based obligation that requires ongoing oversight.
Where digital checks return incomplete or unclear results, HR teams are now expected to intervene, escalate and resolve the issue before employment continues. Proceeding in the absence of clarity is increasingly being criticised in Home Office reviews, even where an online check was attempted.
This has moved responsibility away from individual recruiters and onto HR systems as a whole.
Why HR teams are feeling the pressure now
The past year marked the end of the UK’s transitional approach to digital immigration status. Physical documents have fallen away, digital records are now the primary evidence of permission, and tolerance for inconsistencies has reduced accordingly.
For HR teams, this means there is no longer a buffer between a flawed check and compliance exposure. Where digital records do not align with role details, hours or visa conditions, the expectation is that HR resolves the issue, rather than waiting for the Home Office system to correct itself.
This explains why right to work compliance is increasingly surfacing as a pressure point during audits and reviews.
Follow-up checks are now an HR ownership issue
One of the most consistent weaknesses identified in reviews is not the initial check, but what happens afterwards. Workers with time-limited permission require follow-up checks, and HR teams are now being scrutinised on whether those checks are actively tracked and completed on time.
Where diarising systems fail, ownership is unclear or evidence is missing, the conclusion is often that the statutory excuse has lapsed. For HR teams managing large or decentralised workforces, this creates a real risk unless responsibility is clearly defined and monitored.
How Home Office audits now test HR functions
Modern Home Office audits are increasingly conducted remotely and at scale. Rather than focusing on isolated files, reviewers assess whether HR processes operate consistently across the organisation.
They examine how unclear digital results are handled, whether escalation routes exist, how follow-ups are managed and whether records show a clear rationale for compliance decisions. A single unresolved issue can prompt broader questioning of onboarding controls and governance.
For HR professionals, this means audit readiness is no longer about file completion alone. It is about process design and execution.
Practical considerations
The most important shift for HR teams to recognise is that digitalisation has increased, not reduced, accountability. The Home Office is no longer interested in whether a check was attempted. It is focused on whether HR systems produced a clear and defensible outcome.
Where digital status checks return ambiguity, silence or conflict, that uncertainty is now treated as unresolved risk unless HR actively intervenes. Good faith effort is no longer enough.
Effective HR compliance now depends on clear ownership, escalation protocols and reliable follow-up systems. Teams that still treat right to work checks as a one-off onboarding step are increasingly exposed.
What often begins as a minor technical issue can quickly escalate into evidence of systemic weakness. That is when wider compliance action, civil penalties and reputational risk come into play.
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.
