The UK Home Office published its third update in three months on May 20, 2026, introducing changes to right to work (RTW) checks and sponsor licence requirements for employers. The update reverses earlier guidance from April that required sponsors to conduct RTW checks on anyone they ‘directly engage,’ restoring the position held before March 2026.
Under the new guidance, sponsors are no longer required to carry out RTW checks on non-sponsored workers they directly engage rather than employ. However, sponsors must continue performing RTW checks on all sponsored staff—whether employees or not—and all unsponsored employees. The scope of record-keeping duties has also expanded: sponsors now need to retain evidence of RTW checks for their entire sponsored or employed workforce.
The Home Office clarified that a sponsor licence is likely to be revoked if a sponsored worker does not have relevant permission to work. Additionally, applications may be refused or revoked if it is presumed that an organisation was primarily established to bring someone into the UK. The updated guidance provides examples where companies might be considered as existing mainly for this purpose and warns that insufficient evidence of genuine business activity could result in refusal or revocation of a sponsor licence.
Further clarifications address what constitutes an operating or trading presence in the UK. If there is no significant trade activity with external clients or evidence points toward ‘circular trading’ between related entities, the Home Office may conclude there is no meaningful operating presence. Definitions for ‘trading’ and ‘operating’ have been added: trading refers broadly to providing goods or services commercially, while operating includes activities by charities and businesses preparing for future commercial activity.
Employers should expect more changes when legislation under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 comes into effect as early as autumn 2026. This law broadens RTW check requirements and increases potential penalties, but details about implementation remain unclear.
