Right to Work changes coming in October 2026: What employers need to know

From 1 October 2026, the UK's Right to Work Scheme will apply to a wider range of working arrangements, potentially bringing organisations within the civil penalty regime even where they do not directly employ the individual concerned.

The basic checking process for employees will remain largely unchanged. For many businesses, the biggest challenge will not be checking employees' right to work. Instead, it will be understanding whether their wider contracting arrangements could expose them to liability if illegal working is identified.

They will considerably expand the types of working arrangements that fall within the scope of the regime and may expose some organisations to liability for illegal working even where they do not directly employ or engage the individual concerned.

For employers, the stakes remain high. An organisation that is found to have employed or engaged an illegal worker, and cannot establish a statutory excuse, may face a civil penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. As the scope of the Right to Work Scheme expands, organisations that have never previously considered themselves responsible for right to work compliance may need to reassess their exposure.

What is changing from 1 October 2026?

The Home Office has recently published draft guidance and a code of practice setting out the changes to the UK's right to work regime.

The reforms will extend the Right to Work Scheme beyond traditional employment relationships. The changes include:

A wider definition of who may be treated as an employer for Right to Work purposes
The inclusion of certain worker contracts, individual subcontractors and online matching service providers
New provisions that may extend liability to organisations further up a contractual chain
Additional requirements around contractual controls, supplier oversight and worker verification
Changes affecting the use of Right to Work Digital Verification Service Providers (RtW DVSPs).

A broader definition of "employer" for Right to Work purposes

Historically, right to work obligations have primarily focused on traditional employment relationships. From 1 October 2026, however, the scheme will apply to a wider range of arrangements, including certain worker contracts, individual subcontractors and online matching service providers.

This means organisations which may never previously have considered themselves responsible for right to work compliance could now find themselves within scope. Some online matching platforms have already been carrying out checks voluntarily, but the changes will bring certain arrangements within the statutory regime.

At the same time, businesses should be cautious about assuming that labels such as "self-employed" or "contractor" automatically place an arrangement outside the regime. The draft guidance emphasises the importance of examining how the arrangement operates in practice.

Importantly, being treated as an employer for Right to Work purposes does not necessarily mean that an organisation becomes the worker's employer for wider employment law purposes. The question is whether the organisation falls within the scope of the Right to Work Scheme.

What is "extended liability"?

Perhaps the most significant change is the introduction of provisions that can extend Right to Work liability beyond the organisation with the direct contractual relationship with the worker.

The organisation with the direct contractual relationship with a worker will continue to be responsible for carrying out right to work checks. The draft guidance also makes clear that the new provisions do not automatically transfer that responsibility to another organisation in the contractual chain, nor do they mean that every organisation purchasing services must automatically carry out duplicate checks.

However, in certain contractual arrangements, another organisation involved in arranging or delivering the work may also fall within the scope of the Right to Work Scheme and may therefore face liability if the relevant requirements are not met. This is particularly relevant where contractual arrangements are complex, responsibility is unclear, or it is difficult to identify the party directly responsible for the worker.

There remains some uncertainty over the precise scope of the new provisions, but the message is clear that organisations should not assume that liability ends with the entity that directly engages the worker.

Which arrangements are most likely to be affected?

The draft guidance identifies three broad categories of arrangements where the new provisions may be relevant:

Supply chains involving multiple layers of contracting and subcontracting
Online matching platforms that connect service providers with customers
Arrangements where workers can substitute another individual to perform the work on their behalf

By way of illustration:

Supply chains and subcontracting

A property developer engages businesses through a chain of contracts to provide workers for a housebuilding project. Where the contractual arrangements fall within scope, the property developer may be treated as the employer and may be liable for a civil penalty if an individual is found to be working illegally, even if they have not directly employed or engaged that individual

Online matching platforms

A homeowner uses an online matching service to find an electrician and is provided the details of an electrical services business who they enter into a contract with. The business sends a worker to carry out the work. Where the arrangements fall within scope, the online matching service may be treated as the employer for Right to Work purposes and may be liable for a civil penalty if the worker is found to be working illegally.

Substitution arrangements

An individual works through a food delivery platform as a self-employed contractor and is permitted to delegate work to another person. Where the arrangements fall within scope, the platform may be treated as the employer for Right to Work purposes of the individual actually carrying out the work, including a substitute, and may be liable for a civil penalty if that individual is found to be working illegally.

The reforms are intended to address situations where the identity and immigration status of the person actually carrying out the work may be more difficult to monitor than in a traditional employment relationship.

Will businesses that buy services be caught?

Not necessarily.

The draft guidance makes clear that the new provisions are not intended to apply to every business that purchases services from another business. Organisations that simply buy services for their own operations will often remain outside the scope of the extended liability provisions.

For example, the guidance distinguishes between a retailer that purchases cleaning services for its own premises and a business that is itself responsible for delivering services to a third party through a chain of contractors.

The distinction may not always be straightforward. Organisations operating complex supply chain models should therefore review their contractual arrangements carefully.

What does this mean for supply chain compliance?

Where the extended liability provisions apply, businesses will need to consider more than simply including standard right to work wording within supplier agreements.

The draft guidance requires organisations to have in place appropriate contractual controls, audit rights, supplier oversight arrangements and processes for verifying that workers are who they claim to be.

Importantly, the Home Office appears likely to expect organisations to show that these controls operate effectively in practice. A contractual obligation requiring a supplier to carry out Right to Work checks may provide limited or no protection if the organisation has no process for obtaining evidence, monitoring compliance or responding to concerns.

This means procurement, legal and HR teams may need to work together more closely than before when onboarding suppliers and managing labour supply chains.

What are the new challenges around substitution?

The changes are also likely to attract attention in sectors where substitution arrangements are common.

Where a worker is permitted to send another individual to undertake work in their place, the draft guidance requires organisations to have processes in place to ensure that substitute workers are appropriately verified before they perform the work.

This issue may be particularly relevant in parts of the gig economy, logistics sector and certain self-employed contractor models where substitution rights are frequently written into contractual arrangements.

Businesses should review not only whether substitution is permitted under their contracts, but also how the process operates in practice and what checks are carried out when a substitute is introduced.

Reviewing technology and verification processes

The reforms also include changes relating to digital Right to Work checks.

The draft guidance sets out updated requirements regarding the use of Right to Work Digital Verification Service Providers (RtW DVSPs), including a move towards registered providers.

Businesses that rely on digital identity verification solutions should therefore review their existing arrangements and consider whether their provider and processes will continue to meet the requirements when the new regime comes into force.

What should employers do now?

Although the guidance remains in draft form, organisations should start preparing for the changes now

Before 1 October 2026, organisations should consider:

Mapping labour supply chains and outsourced service arrangements

Identify where contractors, subcontractors, suppliers or other third parties are involved in delivering work or services.

Identifying relationships that fall outside traditional employment models

Consider whether the organisation uses worker contracts, individual subcontractors, online platforms or arrangements involving substitution.

Reviewing contractor and supplier agreements

Check existing supplier and contractor agreements for Right to Work obligations, audit rights, evidence requirements and provisions dealing with substitution.

Assessing substitution provisions and related controls

Consider whether contractual requirements are supported by effective processes for obtaining evidence and monitoring compliance.

Evaluating identity verification processes

Check how the identities and Right to Work status of relevant workers and substitutes are verified, including any reliance on digital verification providers.

Clarifying responsibilities

Make sure HR, procurement, legal and compliance teams understand who is responsible for which checks and what additional obligations may apply.

Looking ahead

The expansion of the Right to Work Scheme represents one of the most significant changes to illegal working compliance in recent years.

While many employers' existing employee checking processes will remain unchanged, businesses that rely on contractors, subcontractors, labour supply chains or platform-based workforces should take the opportunity to review their arrangements now and identify any compliance gaps before 1 October 2026.

It will no longer be enough to simply ask "Have we checked our employee's right to work?"; organisations will also need to ask, "Do our wider working and contracting arrangements bring us within the Right to Work Scheme?"