By Mr JP Breytenbach
Director | Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants
UK right to work compliance has moved from a background obligation to a front-of-mind enforcement priority. In the first half of 2026, the Home Office conducted 7,270 illegal working visits, made 4,756 arrests, and issued civil penalties to over 1,200 employers, with potential fines exceeding £74 million in that period alone.
From 1 October 2026, weeks away, the Right to Work Scheme is expected to expand again. The change is not yet law. It depends on section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which has not been commenced, and the October date was given in the Home Office’s consultation on a draft Code of Practice. Employers should nonetheless prepare on that basis. If you employ staff in the UK, or engage workers through flexible or self-employed arrangements, this article sets out what is proposed, why the enforcement context makes it more urgent than previous rule changes, and what you need to do before the deadline.
The Enforcement Picture in 2026
The figures for the first half of 2026 are telling:
January to June 2026, enforcement at a glance:
- 7,270 illegal working visits conducted, up 31 per cent on the same period in 2025
- 4,756 arrests, up 20 per cent year on year
- Over 1,200 employers received civil penalties, with potential fines exceeding £74 million
Restaurants, takeaways and cafés remain the largest single category by volume, with 2,195 visits and 1,589 arrests. Warehousing, distribution and delivery saw visits rise by 147 per cent against the same period in 2025, to 635. Construction visits are up 150 per cent, to 268.
These are not random spot checks. The Home Office is targeting sectors that rely heavily on flexible, agency and gig economy labour, precisely the arrangements that the October expansion would bring more firmly into scope.
If your business operates in any of these sectors, or engages workers on a flexible basis, the combination of record enforcement activity and an expanding legal obligation demands attention.
What Changes on 1 October 2026
The Right to Work Scheme has always applied to direct employees. The core obligation, to check that a worker has the right to work before they begin employment and to retain evidence of that check, is not new.
What is expected to change on 1 October is the scope of who that obligation applies to. The proposed extension is to businesses operating flexible and self employed worker models, bringing gig economy platforms, courier operations and driver networks into scope.
On the draft Code of Practice, the expanded definition of employer would reach workers under worker contracts, individual sub contractors, and service providers listed through online matching platforms.
For businesses that have previously relied on the self employed status of their couriers, drivers or platform workers as a reason not to conduct right to work checks, that position is likely to become untenable.
It is important to take note that the Home Office has published no guidance on how the new definition of employer is to be applied in practice, and it is not yet clear whether the obligation reaches genuinely self employed individuals or agency staff with whom the business has no contractual relationship. We will update this article when the position is confirmed.
On the current draft, the substance of the check itself does not change. The documents or share codes required remain the same. What changes is the category of worker for whom the check must be conducted.
Civil Penalties, Criminal Liability, and the Statutory Excuse
An employer who employs someone without the right to work in the UK is potentially liable for a civil penalty of up to £45,000 per illegal worker for a first breach, rising to £60,000 for repeat breaches. These are not theoretical figures. The enforcement data above shows more than 1,200 employers received penalties in the first half of 2026 alone.
The statutory excuse, the legal defence against a civil penalty, is available only where the right to work check was carried out correctly, in the prescribed manner, before employment began. An incorrect check, a check carried out after hiring, or a check on the wrong document provides no defence.
There is also a separate question of criminal liability. A correct right to work check removes the civil penalty risk. It does not protect an employer from criminal prosecution where they knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the worker did not have the right to work.
Criminal liability carries an unlimited fine and up to five years’ imprisonment. Compliance removes civil exposure; it does not remove criminal exposure where the employer was on notice of a problem.
The Home Office has expanded its operations significantly, and the October change would extend the scope of the obligation to a wider category of working arrangements.
Need a right to work compliance review before 1 October?
Our team can assess your current processes, identify any gaps, and advise on what needs to be in place before the change takes effect. We also assist with sponsor licence compliance for employers who sponsor overseas workers under the Skilled Worker or other routes.
→ Book a Compliance Review · info@bic-immigration.com
Author and Editorial Oversight
Author
Mr JP Breytenbach
UK Solicitor | Director, Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants
Mr JP Breytenbach is a UK-admitted solicitor with extensive experience in British nationality and immigration law. He advises multinational employers, high-net-worth individuals and internationally mobile professionals on complex UK immigration matters, including sponsor compliance, settlement pathways and British citizenship applications under the British Nationality Act 1981.
Editorial Oversight
Hannes Breytenbach
Founder | Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants | Attorney of the High Court of South Africa
Hannes Breytenbach is the founder of Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants and an attorney of the High Court of South Africa. Over several decades, he has developed an international immigration advisory practice assisting individuals, families and multinational organisations with complex cross-border immigration strategy and long-term immigration planning.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law changes frequently and individual circumstances vary. Specific advice should be sought before taking action.
