The UK’s shift to digital immigration status is changing how right to work compliance is assessed, with unresolved issues in online checks increasingly leading to enforcement action. While there has been no recent change to the law, the way digital right to work checks are being scrutinised is evolving as the system becomes fully embedded.
For employers, the change is not about new rules, but about how existing right to work checks are now judged when reviewed by the Home Office.
How right to work checks now operate in practice
Most right to work checks are now carried out online using a share code provided by the worker. The employer enters that code into the Home Office system to confirm whether the individual has permission to work and under what conditions.
Where a share code produces a clear confirmation, the process is relatively straightforward. Problems arise when the digital result is incomplete, unclear or inconsistent with the role being offered. In those cases, employers are expected to take further steps to resolve the issue rather than proceed on the assumption that it will correct itself.
This distinction is becoming increasingly important in enforcement decisions.
Why digital right to work checks are under scrutiny
Over the past year, physical immigration documents such as biometric residence permits have largely fallen out of use. Digital records, accessed through share codes, are now the primary evidence of immigration status.
During the transition, there was some flexibility while systems and processes settled. That period has now passed. Digital right to work checks are no longer an alternative method. They are the default system, and the Home Office is assessing compliance on that basis.
As a result, issues that were previously treated as technical or temporary are increasingly being relied on to support enforcement action.
Share codes do not always provide protection
A common misunderstanding is that using a share code automatically protects an employer from liability. In reality, a share code only provides protection where it produces a clear and accurate confirmation of the right to work.
If the online result is ambiguous, incomplete or does not reflect the actual working arrangements, responsibility remains with the employer to investigate and resolve the discrepancy. Proceeding without clarity is now more likely to be challenged.
In some cases, unresolved digital issues have led directly to enforcement action, such as a civil penalty for illegal working.
Follow-up checks remain part of compliance
Right to work compliance does not end once a worker starts employment. Where permission to work is time-limited, employers are expected to carry out follow-up right to work checks before that permission expires.
Missed follow-ups or poor record keeping are increasingly being treated as a loss of the statutory excuse, even where an initial digital check was carried out correctly.
This has become a common issue in enforcement action.
How enforcement is now being applied
Home Office compliance activity increasingly focuses on patterns rather than isolated mistakes. Reviews often examine how digital right to work checks are handled across an organisation, how share code results are interpreted and whether follow-up checks are completed on time.
A single unresolved issue can prompt wider scrutiny of an employer’s systems and processes, increasing the risk of sanctions.
What this signals going forward
The move to digital right to work checks has reduced reliance on paperwork, but it has not reduced legal responsibility. As enforcement practice catches up with the digital system, unresolved ambiguity is increasingly being treated as a compliance failure in its own right.
For employers, the message is that right to work checks are no longer judged on effort alone, but on whether they produce a clear and defensible outcome.
