Right-to-workchecks are one of those areas of immigration compliance that employers often think they understand, until something goes wrong. Over the years, I’ve advised businesses of all sizes that were confident their processes were sound, only to discover that a small technical error had left them completely exposed.

With the Home Office’s shift towards digital status and tighter enforcement, right-to-work checks in 2026 carry significantly more weight than they did even a few years ago. They are no longer an administrative formality. When done incorrectly, the consequences can be severe.

The updated Employer’s Guide issued in June 2025 makes it clear that responsibility always rests with the employer. It doesn’t matter if the check was delegated to HR, outsourced to a recruiter, or handled through a digital verification service. If the process is flawed, liability does not transfer. I’ve seen businesses genuinely shocked by this, particularly where they acted in good faith but relied on outdated practices.

One concept that continues to confuse is the statutory excuse. In simple terms,this is the employer’s only defence against a civil penalty. It exists only if the correct check is carried out before employment begins, using one of the methods prescribed by the Home Office. If the wrong method is used, the statutory excuse never arises, even if the individual did, in fact, have the right to work.

In practice, many employers are still relying on expired BRPs, misunderstanding the role of eVisas, or missing mandatory follow-up checks where permission istime-limited. Others assume that because they use reputable HR systems oridentity providers, compliance is taken care of. Unfortunately, that assumption often proves costly.

For sponsor licence holders, the stakes are even higher. A single right-to-work failure can trigger wider scrutiny, licence suspension, or revocation. I’ve acted in cases where overseas recruitment plans collapsed overnight, not because of deliberate wrongdoing, but because the employer could not evidence a statutory excuse during an audit.

The most important question I now ask employers is a simple one: if the Home Office were to inspect your records today, could you confidently demonstrate acompliant right to work check for every employee? Hesitation usually signalsrisk.

Right-to-work compliance does not need to be overwhelming, but it does need to be precise, current, and properly documented. At GigaLegal Solicitors, we work closely with employers to review existing processes, identify vulnerabilities, and ensure systems are aligned with the Home Office’s expectations as they stand today, notas they were a few years ago.

This is an area where prevention genuinely is better than cure. Once enforcement action begins, options narrow quickly.

The most important question I now ask employers is a simple one: if the Home Office were to inspect your records today, could you confidently demonstrate a compliant right to work check for every employee? Hesitation usually signals risk.