For many employers, the first real encounter with the UK’s illegal working regime is the arrival of a Home Office letter accusing them of employing someone without permission to work. The shock is not just the level of the fine for employing illegal workers, but the realisation that the options and deadlines are tight and the evidential burden sits firmly with the organisation. A civil penalty is not simply a bill to be paid or ignored. How you respond, and how quickly you act, will shape whether the penalty is cancelled, reduced or upheld and can influence how the Home Office views your wider compliance and sponsor licence position for years to come.
Employers commonly misunderstand the nature of the process. They assume there will be flexible discussion with caseworkers, or that explaining they “believed the worker had status” will be enough. In practice, the Home Office applies a strict liability test. If the worker did not have permission or you cannot produce evidence of a compliant right to work process, liability follows unless you can show a statutory excuse. The objection phase is your opportunity to challenge the factual basis, the calculation and in some cases the fairness of the decision. Once that stage passes, your room to manoeuvre narrows to a formal appeal with more time, cost and uncertainty.
To challenge effectively, you need to understand the structure of the regime, the timetable, the limited grounds that carry weight and the type of evidence that actually persuades caseworkers. This article focuses on what options are genuinely open to employers once they receive a penalty notice, how the deadlines work in real time and what a strong evidential response looks like in practice.
Section A: Understanding the Civil Penalty Notice
The process begins when the Home Office issues a formal civil penalty notice. This document sets out the allegation, the level of fine, the workers involved and the basis on which liability is said to arise. It usually follows an investigation where the Home Office has gathered information from an on-site visit, a desk-based audit, data matching or a mixture of these. By the time the notice arrives, caseworkers have already formed a view. Your task is to shift that view using clear, targeted submissions and evidence.
The notice will refer to the organisation’s breach under the civil penalty immigration regime, usually with a breakdown of each worker’s alleged status at the relevant time. It will set out whether this is treated as a first or repeat breach, which affects the level of the fine. It will also explain what steps, if any, the Home Office says you took that fall short of a statutory excuse. Employers often find this section difficult to read, particularly where it appears to dismiss steps they thought were sufficiently cautious or thorough.
Critically, the notice sets out the time limits. There is a strict 28-day period from the date of the notice in which you can object or pay at a reduced rate. This is not a guideline. If you miss it, you lose the discount and the right to internal reconsideration. Employers sometimes waste a week or more debating internally whether to challenge or pay, which compresses the time available to gather evidence. The smarter approach is to treat the 28 days as a working period for building both a defensive case and a contingency position on payment if the challenge does not succeed.
The notice also indicates where the Home Office believes there is no valid statutory excuse. That analysis is often based on how your right to work check was carried out. For example, caseworkers may argue that the check was done after employment began, or that you did not use the correct online route for a worker holding digital status. Understanding that reasoning is key, because your challenge needs to address not only the factual background but the Home Office’s interpretation of your processes.
Section B: Time Limits, Payment Decisions and Tactical Options
The 28-day deadline is at the centre of your strategy. Within that window you must decide whether to pay at a discount, to object, or to do a combination of both across different workers if the notice covers several individuals. The decision is rarely straightforward. Paying quickly may seem attractive to secure the discount and close the matter, but it also means accepting liability. That acceptance will sit on your record and can influence future enforcement and sponsor licence decisions.
Objecting without a coherent evidential plan is equally risky. A weak objection that restates what the Home Office already knows, without new documents or a clearer narrative, can reinforce the caseworker’s original view. It may also give the impression that the organisation does not fully understand its obligations or the seriousness of the process. You therefore need to use the early part of the deadline to scope out the strength of your position. This means identifying where you have hard evidence of a compliant process and where you are reliant on recollection or incomplete records.
Some employers do not appreciate that they can admit liability for some workers while challenging others. If the penalty notice from the Home Office covers multiple individuals, you may be in a stronger position for one than another. In theory, you can frame an objection that accepts liability in part while challenging other elements. That approach can sometimes increase credibility, because it shows the Home Office that you recognise where your systems failed, while robustly resisting findings you can demonstrate are wrong.
The timing of any payment also requires care. Prompt payment within the discount period has obvious financial advantages. However, if you intend to object, paying the discounted amount can reduce your leverage. There are limited circumstances where payment and challenge can run in parallel, but in practice you need to be realistic. If you intend to dispute liability in a meaningful way, you need to commit to that strategy early and accept that the discount may not remain available.
If you miss the 28-day window entirely, your options reduce to arrangements around payment and, in some cases, an appeal to the County Court. That route is far more formal, time-consuming and expensive. It is rarely the best outcome for employers who could have assembled a strong objection if they had used the initial period more effectively.
Section C: Challenging Liability and Establishing a Statutory Excuse
The most powerful challenge is one that demonstrates you had a statutory excuse in place at the relevant time. For that, you need to show that a compliant right to work process was followed and that it covered the entire period during which the worker was employed. Caseworkers will scrutinise both the initial check and any necessary follow-up checks where the worker had time-limited permission.
Your objection must therefore go beyond general statements about policy. It is not enough to say that your organisation takes immigration compliance seriously or that you have a policy document. You need to produce the specific evidence relating to each worker. That typically includes copies of the documents or online outputs you used at the time, any internal forms or records showing when the check took place and who carried it out, and any subsequent checks before visa expiry dates.
Where the worker held digital status, your defence may depend on how you used the share code system. Note, ‘right to rent share codes’ refer to the specific regime for landlords and tenants in England). If you can show that you followed the right to work share code process, accessed the Home Office online service, and retained the correct online profile as evidence, you may be able to demonstrate that the Home Office’s records are incomplete or outdated. A properly documented share code check often carries significant weight, especially where the alleged breach relates to claimed overstaying or a misunderstanding of the worker’s status history.
If your check was manual, your focus will be on the documents accepted and the steps taken to verify them. The Home Office wants to see clear copies of the right to work documents, dated and linked clearly to the worker, and any other relevant proof of check and result, such as the positive verification notice. You may also need to explain who carried out the check and what training they had at the time. Where your evidence shows that all prescribed steps were followed, you can argue that you met the right to work requirements and that any issue arose from Home Office records or from the worker’s status changing after the check was completed.
The statutory excuse also depends on timing. If the worker had time-limited permission, you need to show that you carried out a repeat check before expiry. This is where monitoring systems become crucial. Records that show key dates, reminders and follow-up activity will support your case. If you cannot show this, it becomes much harder to argue that the statutory excuse continued throughout employment.
In some cases, you will need to challenge the Home Office’s factual understanding of the worker’s status. That may involve obtaining evidence directly from the worker, including copies of visas, correspondence or previous decisions. It may also involve using the online service that allows the worker to prove your right to work and comparing the output against the Home Office’s chronology. Where you can demonstrate inconsistencies, you have a basis to argue that the penalty should be cancelled or reduced.
Section D: Challenging the Calculation and Repeat Breach Classification
Even where liability is difficult to avoid, there is often scope to challenge how the penalty has been calculated. The Home Office applies different levels of fine depending on whether this is treated as a first or repeat breach and whether it believes you carried out any partial checks. If you can show that the classification is wrong, the total amount can drop significantly.
The notice may state that the organisation is subject to higher tariffs because it has previously received a penalty. You need to check whether that earlier penalty was in fact issued against the same legal entity and whether it was upheld or cancelled. If the Home Office is relying on historic cases that do not relate to the current employer, or where the earlier penalty was cancelled, you can argue that the higher tariff has been applied incorrectly.
There may also be scope to challenge the number of workers said to be in breach. In some cases, the Home Office will list individuals who no longer work for you, or who were never your employees in the first place, perhaps because they were supplied by an agency or another party in a contractual chain. While liability can still arise in complex labour supply arrangements, the detail matters. You may be able to argue that the Home Office has not correctly identified who the employer was at the relevant time and that the penalty should be reduced.
Partial checks can also affect calculation. If the Home Office has given you no credit for steps you did take, you may need to highlight where your records show that at least some element of the prescribed process was followed. This will not create a full statutory excuse, but in some cases it can shift you into a lower band, with a reduced level of fine. Your objection must be precise here. Vague claims that “we always check passports” carry little weight unless supported by dated evidence and clear records.
Where the penalty involves both sponsored and non-sponsored workers, you may also wish to address how the Home Office has treated those categories. While the core right to work duty applies across the board, the context for sponsored workers is different, particularly if you have strong evidence of sponsor licence compliance, such as clean audit outcomes or clear reporting records. These factors do not nullify liability but can support an argument that a lower penalty is appropriate.
Section E: Evidence Strategy and Internal Fact-Finding
Effective challenges depend on disciplined internal fact-finding. The moment a penalty notice arrives, you should identify which parts of the business were involved in hiring and managing the workers in question. That may include HR, recruitment teams, line managers and, where relevant, external agencies or payroll providers. Each of these may hold pieces of the evidential puzzle.
You need to move quickly to secure all relevant material. That includes original scans and copies, internal emails, onboarding forms and any notes taken at the time of hiring. It also includes records of repeat checks, reminders and follow-up activity. Where checks involved digital status, you should locate the saved outputs from the online prove your right to work service, the share code check or any associated screenshots. Even if those outputs fall short of the statutory standard, they still form part of the narrative you will need to build.
As you review this material, you are looking for a coherent story. You need to understand who made decisions, what assumptions they relied on and whether there were moments where a different choice would have changed the outcome. This allows you to distinguish between errors that stemmed from individual mistakes and those that indicate wider system flaws. The more you can show that the problem was contained, the stronger your arguments for cancellation or reduction.
You also need to identify where your own documents conflict with the Home Office’s account. It is not uncommon for enforcement teams to rely on outdated or incomplete status information, particularly where a worker’s position has changed frequently. Comparing your evidence against the Home Office’s chronology can reveal gaps or inaccuracies that you can then address in your objection.
In parallel, you should consider how your processes line up against the published guidance on right to work checks. An honest internal assessment of whether your procedures meet that standard will inform how far it is sensible to press liability arguments. Where there are obvious procedural gaps, it may be more effective to concentrate on reducing the penalty and demonstrating remedial work, rather than insisting that the Home Office is entirely wrong.
Section F: Sponsor Licence Considerations When Challenging a Penalty
For sponsors, a civil penalty is never just about the fine. It sends a signal to sponsor licence caseworkers that there may be structural weaknesses in your systems. That means your challenge has to consider both the immediate financial outcome and the longer-term impact on your sponsor status.
When drafting your objection, you should be aware that sponsor caseworkers are likely to read it. Assertions that downplay the seriousness of the breach, or that suggest you regard the rules as negotiable, can cause real damage to your sponsorship reputation. Equally, a measured response that accepts fault where it is clear, explains how failures occurred and sets out specific improvements can support your position if the Home Office later considers downgrading or suspension.
You should therefore consider whether separate communication is appropriate to address sponsorship concerns. That might involve describing how you have strengthened your processes since the breach, including improvements around right to work checklist usage, new training on right to work digital identity checks or enhanced oversight of hiring managers. Clear evidence of structural change can help mitigate the perceived risk.
The way you handle the penalty can also influence how the Home Office responds to any future audits or visits. If your challenge is well-structured, evidence-backed and honest about weaknesses, you are more likely to be treated as a sponsor that takes compliance seriously, even where errors have occurred. If your response is defensive or limited to generalities, you increase the chance that the Home Office will see you as a sponsor that needs tighter supervision.
Section G: Appeals and When to Take a Case to Court
If the Home Office rejects your objection, your remaining formal option is an appeal to the County Court. At this stage, the matter moves out of the internal decision-making system into a judicial process. Appeals can succeed, but they require time, money and a significant evidential foundation. They also bring litigation risk, including potential cost orders if the case does not succeed.
Deciding whether to appeal involves weighing the level of the penalty against the cost and disruption of court proceedings. It also involves a realistic assessment of the strength of your case. If your evidence remains incomplete or unclear, the court is unlikely to be persuaded that the Home Office acted wrongly. If, however, you have a well-documented record of compliant checks, or you can show that the Home Office relied on incorrect status information, an appeal may be justified.
At appeal, the court will consider both the legality of the decision and, in some cases, the proportionality of the penalty. You will need to present your evidence in a structured way, often through witness statements from those involved in the checks and from senior management who can speak to systems and culture. This process is demanding and will draw management attention away from other work for an extended period.
The decision to appeal should therefore be taken only after careful analysis. In many cases, a focused objection phase that secures cancellation or reduction is more efficient and less disruptive than litigation. The objection is your best opportunity to resolve matters while keeping control over cost and timescale.
Conclusion
Challenging a Home Office civil penalty is not about rhetoric or broad assurances. It is about understanding the narrow windows the regime gives you, making fast yet informed decisions on strategy and assembling evidence that speaks directly to the Home Office’s concerns. The 28-day deadline is not a formality. It is the period in which you have the most control over the outcome. Once that window closes, options become more rigid, more expensive and less predictable.
Employers who handle penalties for employing illegal workers most effectively are those who act quickly, gather facts methodically and respond with clear, structured objections that address both liability and calculation. They distinguish between workers where a statutory excuse can genuinely be shown and those where systems failed. They accept fault where it is obvious and focus their efforts on the parts of the notice that can be changed. They also view the penalty as a signal to strengthen their right to work processes, not just for the purposes of this case but to reduce the risk of future enforcement.
In an environment of higher fines and closer scrutiny, a civil penalty notice is a serious event. It demands a careful, evidence-led response that protects not only your immediate financial position but also your reputation with the Home Office and your sponsor licence for the years ahead.
