Updates to the Home Office’s official sponsor guidance in March and April 2026 have introduced a more expansive and interconnected approach to compliance across right to work checks, salary assessment and pay reporting. The changes form part of a broader shift in how the Home Office expects sponsors to evidence that individuals are working lawfully and being paid correctly under the Immigration Rules.
Right to work obligations have been extended through guidance to cover a wider range of working arrangements, including individuals engaged outside traditional employment structures. At the same time, salary compliance is now being assessed by reference to actual pay received over defined pay periods, with increased scrutiny of payroll records, working hours and any fluctuations in earnings.
These developments bring right to work processes, sponsorship duties and payroll practices into closer alignment, requiring sponsors to take a more integrated and evidence-led approach to compliance.
The result is a more demanding framework in which organisations need to demonstrate not only that checks have been carried out, but that their systems accurately reflect how individuals are engaged and paid in practice.
Expansion of right to work checks beyond employees
The March 2026 update introduced wording requiring sponsors to carry out right to work checks on individuals “engaged” by the organisation. That term was not defined. The April update replaced it with “directly engaged”, but again without a clear test.
In practical terms, the guidance now expects checks to be carried out not only for sponsored workers and employees, but also for individuals engaged directly by the business in a personal capacity. This can include contractors, consultants and certain casual arrangements depending on how the relationship operates in reality.
The change shifts compliance away from a narrow employment-based model towards a wider assessment of the organisation’s workforce. The absence of a clear definition means sponsors need to assess each arrangement on its facts and be able to justify their position.
Misalignment with the statutory excuse regime
The statutory excuse framework has not changed. Employers are still required to carry out right to work checks on employees to protect against civil penalties. That obligation does not extend to all forms of engagement.
Sponsor guidance now goes further. A sponsor can comply fully with the statutory excuse requirements and still face enforcement action if the Home Office considers that checks should have been carried out more widely. The practical effect is a dual compliance standard, where sponsor duties exceed the legal baseline.
Revocation risk linked to wider workforce compliance
The updated guidance makes clear that sponsor licence action can follow where a business is found to be employing or engaging an individual who does not have the right to work. The wording is not limited to sponsored workers.
Revocation will normally follow in these cases, subject to the facts and the systems in place. The focus has moved towards whether the organisation has effective controls across its workforce, rather than whether a specific check was carried out correctly in isolation.
Increased scrutiny of salary and pay reporting
The March 2026 updates also sit alongside a shift in how the Home Office is assessing compliance with salary requirements. Sponsors are increasingly being asked to evidence that sponsored workers are being paid correctly in line with the Immigration Rules and their Certificate of Sponsorship.
Salary is now assessed by reference to actual pay received over defined pay periods, rather than headline annual figures alone. This includes scrutiny of payslips, payroll records and working hours to confirm that the required salary thresholds are met in practice.
Where salary fluctuates, the Home Office will look at whether the worker consistently meets the required level across the relevant period. Shortfalls, even if temporary, can raise compliance concerns if not properly explained.
Pay period rules and working patterns
Linked to salary verification is a greater focus on pay period rules. Sponsors need to be able to demonstrate that salary is calculated correctly based on actual hours worked and the contractual arrangement in place.
Where workers are paid hourly, or where hours vary, the Home Office will examine whether the equivalent salary meets the required threshold when calculated over the relevant pay reference period. Irregular working patterns, unpaid leave and salary deductions can all affect compliance if not managed and recorded correctly.
In practice, this means payroll and sponsorship compliance are now closely aligned. Discrepancies between contractual salary, reported salary and actual payments are more likely to trigger scrutiny.
What this means in practice for sponsors
Sponsors are now expected to take a more holistic approach to right to work compliance. The focus is no longer limited to onboarding checks for employees and sponsored workers. It extends to how individuals are engaged across the organisation and whether appropriate checks have been carried out in each case.
At the same time, salary compliance is being tested against actual payroll data, with closer attention to how pay is calculated and evidenced over time. Right to work, sponsorship and payroll processes can no longer be treated as separate functions.
The lack of clear definitions within the guidance means that judgement calls are unavoidable. Sponsors should be able to explain how they have assessed different categories of worker and why checks have or have not been carried out.
The combined effect of the March and April updates is a higher and less clearly defined compliance threshold. Expectations have expanded, while the underlying legal framework has not been updated to provide certainty.
Sponsors should proceed on the basis that the Home Office will take a broad view of its powers. A cautious and evidence-based approach, supported by consistent internal processes and clear documentation, is now central to managing sponsor licence risk.
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 Agency for the Professional Services Sector.
