London

Home Office enforcement activity has reached its highest level on record. Home Office data published in January 2026 shows a marked increase in illegal working investigations, civil penalty notices and follow-up compliance action across all sectors, not just those traditionally viewed as high risk. For employers, this confirms what many have already experienced in practice. Right to work compliance is an active enforcement priority, with audits increasingly desk-based, data-driven and unforgiving of technical error. This article looks at what Home Office caseworkers now scrutinise during right to work and right to rent audits, how minor process failures escalate into enforcement action and how civil penalties are imposed when compliance gaps are found. The focus is not on theory, but on what actually triggers penalties in real-world audits. Why Right to Work Audits Are Driving Enforcement A right to work audit rarely starts with a raid. Most enforcement action begins with a paper review. Caseworkers assess whether an employer can demonstrate a compliant right to work process across the workforce. Where records are incomplete, inconsistent or missing, the Home Office treats this as evidence of systemic failure rather than a one-off oversight. Employers who fail an audit are exposed to a civil penalty, regardless of intent. The regime is strict. A single non-compliant worker can lead to a civil penalty notice, even where the individual was believed to have permission to work. Caseworkers focus on process, not belief. Where breaches are identified, a penalty notice from the Home Office may be issued, setting out the fine and the basis for liability. Employers often discover at this stage that the threshold for compliance is far higher than they assumed. What Caseworkers Look for in a Right to Work Audit The audit lens is technical. Caseworkers review whether the employer carried out the correct right to work process at the correct time and in the correct format. They examine whether the check was completed before employment began, whether the right method was used for that individual’s status and whether evidence was retained properly. For digital checks, the use of a share code is central. Employers must obtain a valid right to work share code directly from the worker and carry out a live share code check using the Home Office system. Screenshots supplied by the worker or saved profile images do not create a statutory excuse. Where manual checks apply, caseworkers examine whether original right to work documents were seen, copied correctly and dated. Any failure in the chain removes the statutory excuse. A partial check is treated as no check at all. The Home Office also assesses whether the employer applies the same right to work checks consistently across the workforce. Inconsistent processes often trigger deeper investigation. ECS Checks and Time-Limited Status Where the online system cannot confirm status, employers are expected to use the Employer Checking Service. A compliant ECS check can protect the employer, but only if followed through correctly. Caseworkers look for a valid positive verification notice issued by the Home Office. Reliance on worker assurances, pending applications or expired evidence is not accepted. Failure to complete an ECS process correctly is one of the most common reasons employers lose their statutory excuse. Repeat checks are another audit flashpoint. Employers must track expiry dates and re-check permission where required. Missed follow-ups are treated as fresh breaches. Right to Rent Compliance Is Now Part of the Picture Home Office audits increasingly consider wider compliance culture, including landlord checks where the employer also provides accommodation. Caseworkers may review whether a right to rent share code was used correctly and whether a compliant right to rent check was carried out. Failures in this area can reinforce a finding that the organisation lacks robust immigration compliance controls overall, increasing enforcement risk. When Audit Findings Become Civil Penalties Where non-compliance is identified, the Home Office categorises the breach as a civil penalty immigration matter. Liability arises under the civil penalty under Immigration Act framework, with fines calculated per worker. Employers face significant exposure under the penalties for employing illegal workers regime. The maximum fine for employing illegal workers can reach tens of thousands of pounds per individual. Partial compliance does not reduce liability unless it meets the statutory standard. Once issued, a penalty notice places the employer on the Home Office enforcement record. This can trigger further scrutiny, including sponsor licence action where applicable. Why Small Errors Carry Disproportionate Risk Audit outcomes often surprise employers because the underlying issue appears minor. A missing date, an unreadable scan or reliance on the wrong check method can undo years of otherwise compliant hiring. Caseworkers do not assess proportionality. They assess technical compliance. This explains why civil penalties are increasingly being issued to professional services firms, tech companies and employers with sophisticated HR teams. The standard is uniform, regardless of sector or size. Building an Audit-Resilient Compliance Framework Audit resilience depends on structure, not volume. Employers need a single, consistent process for how they prove your right to work for every worker. Evidence should be stored centrally, named clearly and accessible immediately. Ad hoc storage across inboxes and local drives is a common audit failure point. Training also matters. Anyone involved in onboarding must understand the difference between a compliant digital check and an invalid shortcut. Most penalties arise from process drift rather than deliberate non-compliance. Conclusion Right to work audits are now a primary enforcement tool, and civil penalties are being issued at unprecedented levels. Home Office scrutiny focuses on evidence, timing and consistency, not intention. In the current environment, therefore, the employers who treat right to work as audit-grade processes will be better placed to avoid civil penalties and enforcement action. For specialist guidance on any aspect of UK immigration compliance, Right to Work or options if you have received a civil penalty notice, contact us.  

Workforce planning for overseas talent often stops at visa expiry dates. Sponsorship end dates, extension windows and right to work checks dominate the conversation. What is far less visible, but often more decisive, is what happens next. The transition from temporary leave into settlement and, for some, citizenship is a critical inflection point in an employee’s relationship with the UK and with their employer. These milestones influence whether workers see their future as fixed in the UK or still conditional. They affect loyalty, willingness to accept promotion and openness to long-term succession planning. Employers who ignore settlement and citizenship timelines risk misreading retention signals and overestimating long-term availability. Temporary Leave Does Not Equal Long-Term Security Many overseas workers spend years moving through time-limited immigration permission. During this period, employment decisions are shaped by compliance and renewal rather than permanence. A worker may appear settled in role while still operating under significant legal uncertainty. True settlement is usually achieved through indefinite leave to remain. Reaching that stage requires a formal ILR application supported by detailed evidence of lawful residence, absences and compliance across several years. This process is exacting and unforgiving of error. From a planning perspective, this creates a hidden risk window. Workers approaching settlement are often under pressure to gather documentation, attend tests and calculate eligibility precisely. ILR fees are high and non-refundable. A refusal or premature application can force a return to temporary leave, sometimes via a FLR visa, extending uncertainty at the point when stability was assumed. Different Settlement Frameworks Require Different Assumptions Employers frequently assume that all settlement routes operate in the same way. That assumption is misplaced. EU nationals sit under the EU Settlement Scheme, not the Immigration Rules. Those granted settled status already hold a settled form of leave, but absence rules differ from ILR and documentary proof is digital. Legacy permanent residence documents add further confusion. They no longer confer lawful status, yet they are still relied on incorrectly by some workers and employers. Misunderstanding this distinction can lead to flawed assumptions about mobility and long-term availability, particularly where international travel or overseas assignments are involved. Workforce planning that fails to account for these differences risks misjudging how secure a role truly is. Settlement as a Retention Tipping Point The point at which settlement is granted often triggers reassessment. Once sponsorship ends, workers gain freedom to change roles, employers or locations without immigration constraint. For some, this reinforces commitment. For others, it opens the door to alternatives that were previously closed. Retention at this stage is influenced by experience. Workers who encounter unnecessary friction, last-minute HR requests or inflexibility during the settlement process are more likely to disengage once they are no longer tied to their sponsor. Employers who provide structure and predictability during this phase often see the opposite effect. Some workers plan beyond settlement. Progression to British citizenship removes immigration control entirely. Decisions about whether to apply for British citizenship are often taken alongside broader career planning and family considerations. Citizenship and Workforce Mobility Citizenship changes the employment equation. A worker who holds citizenship can accept overseas postings, extended travel or global leadership roles without risking status. Settled workers must continue to manage absences carefully. The British citizenship application process is distinct from settlement and introduces new eligibility criteria. Applicants must satisfy the UK citizenship requirements, including residence thresholds and good character assessment. Operational impact is predictable. Applicants must pass the British citizenship test and, where required, an English test for citizenship. These steps require time away from work. Referee requirements also introduce delay where a suitable referee for British citizenship has not been identified early. The Financial Pressure Behind Long-Term Status Settlement and citizenship both involve significant cost. British citizenship fees are high and non-refundable. The British citizenship application fee applies regardless of outcome. Failure to meet the British citizenship requirements results in refusal and loss of fees. These costs are often borne personally by the worker. Financial pressure at this stage frequently translates into stress, distraction and cautious decision-making about career moves. Policy Direction and Earned Stability Recent policy language around Earned Settlement reflects a continued emphasis on compliance and sustained lawful residence. While not a separate legal category, it signals how future settlement and citizenship frameworks may continue to reward continuity and contribution. Workers who have maintained clean immigration histories often seek to complete settlement or citizenship promptly rather than extend temporary leave. Employers who engage constructively at this point are more likely to retain experience once immigration control falls away. Workforce Planning Beyond Visa Dates Visa expiry dates are an incomplete measure of workforce risk. Effective planning requires visibility of where key staff sit on the path from temporary leave to settlement and, potentially, to citizenship. This affects succession planning, leadership pipelines and investment decisions in specialist roles. Treating settlement and citizenship awareness as part of people management, rather than legal advice, allows employers to plan realistically and avoid false assumptions about long-term retention. Conclusion Long-term retention is shaped by more than compliance. The progression from temporary leave to indefinite leave to remain and onward to British citizenship marks a decisive phase in an employee’s relationship with the UK and their employer. Organisations that recognise settlement and citizenship as workforce planning milestones, rather than administrative endpoints, are better placed to retain overseas talent, manage succession and avoid disruption when immigration control finally falls away. For guidance on sponsorship and immigration risks within your organisation, contact us.  

LONDON and WASHINGTON, D.C., December 1, 2025 — Arnold & Porter announced today that George Jenkins has joined the firm’s Corporate & Finance practice as a partner, resident in London. Kathleen Harris, head of Arnold & Porter’s London office, said: “George brings exceptional experience in guiding complex life sciences transactions. His arrival comes at an essential time, as the U.K. and EU markets face rapid change driven by emerging technologies and evolving regulatory frameworks. George’s insight will strengthen our London team and further enhance the firm’s ability to deliver seamless cross-border solutions.” George has extensive experience advising on sophisticated life sciences agreements and transactions that are often cross-jurisdictional. He represents companies of all sizes across the biotech, life sciences, pharmaceutical, and digital health industries, guiding them through the structuring, negotiating, and drafting of their collaborations, joint ventures, IP licensing, and co-development arrangements, as well as agreements for the manufacture, distribution, and supply of goods. George also counsels companies on regulatory issues in the life sciences sector, including licensing and regulatory requirements, to help clients develop and bring their products to market in the EU. In joining the firm, George said: “Arnold & Porter’s reputation for excellence in the life sciences industry, combined with its London presence and global platform, offers an unparalleled opportunity to serve clients in this dynamic sector. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the U.K. and internationally to support clients in navigating their most pivotal transactions.” George holds an M.Sc. from The London School of Economics and Political Science and a B.A. from the University of Oxford. About Arnold & Porter Arnold & Porter combines sophisticated regulatory, litigation, and transactional capabilities to resolve clients’ most complex issues. With over 1,000 lawyers practicing in 16 offices worldwide, we offer an integrated approach that spans more than 40 practice areas. Through multidisciplinary collaboration and focused industry experience, we provide innovative and effective solutions to mitigate risks, address challenges, and achieve successful outcomes.

Arbor Law has been recognised in the Chambers UK 2025 Guide for its outstanding work supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across the UK – a testament to the firm’s innovative, senior-only model that combines City-firm expertise with in-house commercial insight, designed to eliminate inefficiency and make excellence more accessible to small and mid-sized businesses seeking legal support. Kate Bennett, co-founder of Arbor Law says: “Recognition like this from Chambers and Partners is always deeply meaningful because it reflects the trust our clients place in us and the difference our model is making for them – the biggest accolade. “We built Arbor to deliver Big Law calibre without the baggage. Every Arbor lawyer is trained at top-tier City or international firms and has also served in-house as a General Counsel or senior counsel, giving them a rare dual perspective. That means clients work directly with experienced lawyers who understand risk, strategy and growth – not just the law on paper and can act like true business partners.” “Our lawyers work directly with clients as trusted insiders – often embedding within their teams – to deliver pragmatic, commercially attuned advice that drives business outcomes,” explained Kate. “For SMEs, this approach means access to the same level of expertise typically reserved for multinationals, delivered with the agility and cost transparency that growing businesses need most.” Daniel Adams, co-founder, added: “We’re proud to be named among the UK’s leading SME-focused firms by the world’s leading independent legal research organisation, after a rigorous process of assessment. It’s a credit to our talented team, who bring deep sector experience and a pragmatic, client-first mindset to everything they do. Our goal has always been to make exceptional legal expertise accessible to growing and entrepreneurial businesses and this ranking reinforces that commitment.” The SME-focused firms category celebrates law firms that demonstrate outstanding support for growing and entrepreneurial businesses. Arbor Law’s achievement places it among the Band 2 firms in the category, confirming its position as one of the UK’s leading practices for growing businesses. The full ranking can be viewed on the Chambers and Partners website. For more information about Arbor Law’s legal services for SMEs, visit arbor.law