UK right-to-work checks: a recruiter’s handover checklist
Pass on the checked right-to-work outcome, restrictions and follow-up owner—not just a candidate’s sponsorship answer. Includes handover templates.
· 8 min read
Guidance checked 7 October 2026. This is a handover guide, not the prescribed checking procedure.
“I don’t need sponsorship” is a candidate’s answer, not a completed right-to-work check. Yet that answer can travel from an application form to an onboarding checklist as though someone has already verified it.
Keep the two records separate: what the candidate says, and what the responsible checker has confirmed for this job. The person arranging the start needs the confirmed outcome, any restrictions and a named owner for anything unresolved. A recruiter may also be the trained checker; the important distinction is between the statement and the completed check, not the job titles.
Use the current Home Office code of practice alongside the employer’s guide. The checking colleague should confirm which version applies to the working arrangement and dates, rather than reuse an old checklist without checking.
Name the person responsible before the handover
An employer must check that an applicant is allowed to do the proposed work before employing them. Assign the task to the appropriate colleague rather than leaving the recruiter and onboarding team each assuming the other has completed it. Official employer overview
The Home Office calls the protection against a civil penalty a statutory excuse. It depends on meeting prescribed requirements; an application answer, an uploaded document or an AI assessment does not establish it.
Do not assume the review ends at permanent payroll. For agency, subcontracted or platform-arranged work, ask the responsible colleague to check who has duties under the current scheme and whether extended liability is relevant to the arrangement. Home Office guidance
For work involving another company, confirm responsibilities against the actual contract and start date. Record who supplies the worker, who performs the work and whether substitution is possible. “The supplier checks them” is not a sufficient handover unless the responsible people know what confirmation is required and what to do if a different person arrives.
Keep the candidate’s answer separate from the checking outcome
Record current permission to work and sponsorship needs as separate questions. A candidate’s answer about sponsorship does not, on its own, establish permitted hours, any time limit or whether the proposed work is allowed. Agree consistent wording with the colleague responsible for the check and give applicants a way to explain uncertainty.
A screening note can be simple:
The applicant says they do not need sponsorship. The required right-to-work check has not yet been completed.
An unclear answer should go to the checking colleague, not become a verified finding that the person cannot work. An AI interview can collect an answer but cannot turn it into the prescribed Home Office check. Screened interviews do not establish a statutory excuse.
Keep progress and outcome distinct:
| What has happened? | What the record should say |
|---|---|
| The candidate answered the application question. | Candidate statement recorded; check not yet completed. |
| The requested evidence arrived. | Evidence received; check pending with a named colleague. |
| The responsible colleague completed the check. | The authorised outcome for this work, with restrictions and any follow-up. |
“Check completed” describes a task, not necessarily permission to start. It may be inconclusive, confirm that the proposed work is not permitted, or show restrictions that need to be resolved before the person starts.
Apply the process consistently. Do not select people for checks by name, accent, university or assumed immigration status. The Home Office’s code on avoiding discrimination explains the need for fair checking practices.
Use the appropriate evidence route, not one compulsory form field
A share code is not the only permitted checking route. The Home Office also provides for manual document checks and checks using an appropriately registered right-to-work digital verification service provider, where the person and evidence are eligible. The checking colleague should select the applicable route and follow all its steps. Current employer checklist
Using a digital provider is optional; using just any identity-checking service is not equivalent to completing the prescribed right-to-work check.
Do not make a share-code field compulsory for every applicant. Ask the checking colleague to confirm the permitted routes, then make the form support them. A person who cannot use the form’s preferred route should receive the appropriate instructions, not an automatic rejection.
| What arrives | Useful next action |
|---|---|
| An applicant says they cannot generate a share code. | Ask the checking colleague to identify the appropriate evidence route and explain it to the applicant. |
| An applicant supplies a right-to-work share code. | Record receipt and assign the employer’s check. Do not mark permission confirmed merely because the code arrived. |
| An applicant cannot access their online status. | Record the problem and arrange help or the appropriate alternative, including the Employer Checking Service where applicable. |
A share code still needs to be checked
The Home Office employer service uses the applicant’s right-to-work share code and date of birth. It shows the work permitted and any time limit.
Receiving a code or a screenshot from the applicant is not the same as completing the employer’s prescribed steps. The checking colleague must follow the official requirements, including confirming that the result relates to the person presenting for work and retaining the evidence. Home Office checking requirements
When the evidence is unavailable
A missing code can reflect an access problem, a different evidence route or an immigration application awaiting a decision. The Home Office describes circumstances in which the Employer Checking Service is needed. Let the responsible colleague determine the route rather than improvising a substitute.
Keep the candidate informed without promising clearance:
Thanks for letting us know. I’ll ask the colleague responsible for right-to-work checks to confirm the next step.
Please don’t send identity documents to this inbox. We’ll explain how to provide anything needed securely.
I’ll update you by Thursday, even if the check is still in progress. Your start remains subject to the required checks.
Choose an update date the team can meet. A useful pending record says who is resolving the issue and when the next update is due—not just “documents missing”.
Handover templates: pending and completed checks
Give the person arranging the start enough information to act without opening an interview transcript or collecting the identity documents again. The following are suggested internal fields, not official Home Office categories.
When the check is still pending
Application: [Link and role] Candidate’s statement: Says sponsorship is not needed. Check: In progress; permission for the proposed work has not yet been confirmed. Next action: [Colleague] will confirm the checking route and update [person arranging the start] by [date]. Candidate update: [Name and date].
When the checking colleague has confirmed the outcome
Application and proposed work: [Link, role, hours and start date]. Outcome: [Authorised conclusion for this work]. Completed by and on: [Name and date]. Restrictions and follow-up: [Applicable limits, next check date and owner, or confirmation that no follow-up is required]. Evidence: [Restricted-access record].
Copy the authorised conclusion accurately rather than shortening it to “verified”. A limit on hours or the kind of work permitted needs to remain visible to the person arranging the job. Keep the outcome separate from the candidate’s original answer so that changing a sponsorship field cannot overwrite the check.
Assign follow-up dates to a person, not just a calendar. Record who will act if the check becomes overdue or that colleague leaves, and who must be informed before the proposed work changes.
Test the handover with three sample records: a confirmed result, one with a restriction affecting the proposed hours, and an overdue check. Ask the person arranging the start to explain what they would do next. If all three produce the same “ready to start” response, the status field is hiding information the manager needs.
Escalate an unresolved check before the proposed start. Agree the message to the candidate and manager, and ensure automated onboarding emails do not imply clearance. A missing field must not make an offer decision or change a start date by itself.
Keep the evidence without circulating it to every interviewer
Home Office guidance describes retaining checking evidence and the check date during employment and for two years afterwards. Follow-up requirements depend on the permission involved; the checking colleague should set the applicable date rather than assigning the same recurring check to everyone. Evidence-retention guidance
Agree who can access the evidence, where it is stored and how it will be deleted after the applicable period. The hiring team can receive the outcome without copies of every identity document.
A change to the role, hours or working arrangement may also need review. An earlier outcome should not be treated as permission for any future work the person might do.
Before confirming the start
Can the person arranging the start find the authorised outcome for this job, any restrictions and the owner of anything unresolved?
If the record only says “no sponsorship needed”, hand over a pending task, not a cleared hire. That distinction saves the candidate from repeated questions and the manager from acting on an assumption.
This article provides general information, not legal or immigration advice, an individual right-to-work determination or a guarantee of a statutory excuse. Follow the current Home Office requirements for the person, working arrangement and dates involved; obtain qualified advice where those requirements are unclear.
