A business can have carefully maintained employee files and still be unclear about who checks the people working on its projects.
HR recruits permanent staff. Operations books temporary help. Procurement appoints a subcontractor. Each team may follow its own process, without anyone having a complete picture of how individuals are engaged.
The right to work changes introduced on 1 October 2026 make that gap more significant. The scheme now reaches specified working arrangements beyond traditional employment.
At Knightsbridge, our view is that businesses should begin by understanding those arrangements. A payroll list alone may no longer show everyone relevant to the assessment. The practical task is to establish who engages the individual, which responsibilities apply and how compliance can be demonstrated.
What changed on 1 October 2026?
Section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 expanded the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. Its provisions cover engagement under a worker’s contract, individual subcontracting and qualifying online matching services.
These categories have specific legal meanings. A worker’s contract concerns personal work outside a conventional employment contract, subject to the statutory conditions. Individual subcontracting includes arrangements where a person engages an individual to fulfil work that person has contracted to provide to a third party.
Businesses should therefore examine what the arrangement actually involves. Descriptions such as freelancer, contractor or agency worker are starting points for investigation. They do not resolve the legal assessment.
The change also introduces extended civil penalty liability in specified contractual arrangements. This can reach a party that does not directly contract with the individual carrying out the work.
That creates two questions: who is responsible for the worker’s prescribed check, and whether another party has separate responsibilities because of its place in the contractual chain.
Who checks agency workers and temporary staff?
The Home Office guidance places responsibility for the prescribed check on the employer with the direct contractual relationship with the worker. In a standard agency supply arrangement, the changes are not intended to require routine duplication by the hirer.
Consider a hypothetical business booking temporary reception cover through an employment agency. Before deciding what its own process requires, the business should establish who contracts with the receptionist and how the supply arrangement operates.
Asking those questions is more useful than accepting a general assurance that the agency handles everything. It is also more useful than automatically collecting another set of immigration documents without understanding the reason.
Our practical recommendation is to record who holds the checking responsibility and how concerns will be escalated. The answer should remain clear when a new manager takes over, a different agency is appointed or the arrangement changes.
That clarity supports both lawful recruitment and efficient onboarding.
Subcontracting requires a separate assessment
Extended liability deserves particular attention where a business has agreed to deliver services to a client and then contracts with another employer to deliver some or all of that work.
The legislation can treat a person within the relevant chain as employing an individual who personally performs the work, even without a direct contract between them. Substitution arrangements and online matching services also require attention under the relevant provisions.
For example, imagine a maintenance company that wins a servicing contract and uses another company’s technicians to fulfil it. That structure raises different questions from a business simply purchasing maintenance for its own premises.
The Home Office guidance distinguishes those situations. Extended liability does not automatically apply to every purchase of services, including an end customer buying services for its own internal operations.
This distinction matters commercially. A blanket instruction to check every supplier’s workforce may create unnecessary work while failing to identify the arrangements that actually require attention.
The better approach is to map the contract: what has your business promised to deliver, who supplies the people and where does the individual sit within that arrangement?
Contract wording needs to work in practice
Where extended liability applies, the relevant prescribed requirements address written contractual terms, substitution controls and identity verification. Compliance must be evidenced to establish the statutory excuse, meaning protection against liability for a civil penalty where the applicable requirements are met.
A clause requiring a supplier to comply with immigration law should therefore prompt further questions. Does the agreement address the prescribed requirements? Who monitors compliance? What happens if the person arriving to perform the work is different from the person expected?
Where substitution is permitted, the code requires controls to ensure that the substitute’s right to work is checked before they start. It also requires proportionate arrangements to connect the individual performing the work with the person whose right to work was checked.
Our view is that a written policy becomes useful when it tells people what to do at the moment something changes.
A supervisor should know where to refer an unexpected substitute. Procurement should know when a proposed subcontracting arrangement needs review. HR should be able to identify the relevant checking record.
Those connections are an important part of effective HR and immigration compliance.
Existing contracts and renewals need careful treatment
The Home Office says the extension is not retrospective. A contractual arrangement entered into before 1 October 2026 is not brought within scope solely because work continues afterwards.
However, a renewal, extension or variation needs assessment according to its legal effect. Its label does not establish whether a new contractual arrangement has been created.
Businesses should therefore identify the dates and terms of relevant arrangements before deciding what action is required. An old supplier relationship may involve a new contract. A recent invoice may relate to an arrangement that has continued unchanged.
Our recommendation is to make contract renewal a review point. The person authorising it should know whether the working arrangement has been assessed and whether anything material is changing.
Existing right to work obligations still need attention. The October reform should be incorporated into the organisation’s continuing compliance process, with responsibility for follow-up checks remaining clear.
The check must establish permission for the actual work
A record showing that someone has immigration permission is only useful if the required checking process has been followed and the permission allows the work being offered.
For an eVisa holder, the Home Office checklist directs employers to use the online right to work service with the person’s share code and date of birth. The employer must check identity, the permitted work and any restrictions, then retain the required evidence.
Simply receiving a share code does not complete those steps. Someone needs responsibility for carrying out the check and recording its outcome before the person starts.
The checklist also requires secure retention of the relevant evidence throughout employment and for two years afterwards.
Our existing right to work checks guidance provides the wider context. For this reform, the additional challenge is ensuring that the correct process reaches the working arrangements now covered.
A well-designed system should show what was checked, when it happened, who completed it and whether another check is due.
A consistent process protects workers too
An expanded checking regime should be implemented fairly.
The Home Office’s discrimination code calls for consistent checks, including for British citizens. Employers should not select people for additional scrutiny because of their name, appearance, accent or perceived nationality.
Applicants must also not be treated less favourably solely because acceptable evidence shows a time-limited right to work.
In our view, consistency starts with a clear process for each relevant engagement arrangement. Staff should know when checks happen, which methods are available and where to obtain help if the evidence is unfamiliar.
Uncertainty should lead to a proper assessment. It should not become an informal rule that certain nationalities or immigration documents are too difficult to deal with.
For lawful workers, a predictable process reduces avoidable delays and repeated requests for information.
What businesses should review now
We would begin with how people enter the business or its projects. Review recruitment, agency bookings, subcontracting, platform arrangements and permitted substitution, then identify which arrangements fall within the scheme.
Next, assign responsibility. The person arranging the work, the person conducting any required check and the person authorising the start should understand their respective roles.
Then examine a small selection of actual arrangements. Can the business connect the contract, the person doing the work and the relevant compliance evidence? Would the process still function if the usual HR contact were absent?
This is where an immigration and HR audit can have practical value: identifying a gap between the documented procedure and what happens when work is arranged.
Licensed sponsors have an additional reason to review their position. Current sponsor guidance warns that a civil penalty or failure to carry out required right to work checks can lead to licence revocation.
The October changes make it more important for businesses to understand how their workforce is engaged. Good compliance depends on clear responsibility, usable procedures and evidence that reflects the people actually doing the work.
If your business needs help identifying what requires review, Request a Case Assessment.
