DavidsonMorris | View firm profile
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.