Webinar Recap: Right to Work 2026- What UK Employers Need to Know

In a year where Right to Work rules are shifting, enforcement is rising, and AI fraud is getting more sophisticated, the basics still matter most: doing the check properly, every time, for every worker.

In this joint webinar, Hector Bustillos from Reach ATS was joined by Paul Herring and James Marsden from Rightcheck for a practical session on Right to Work 2026. Together, they unpacked what is changing in law and enforcement, why fraud and imposters are on the rise, and how HR and hiring teams can stay compliant without slowing hiring.

The focus was clear: help UK employers understand what “good” Right to Work compliance looks like across the whole hiring journey, and what needs to be in place before 2026.

Why this conversation mattered

Hector opened by linking the topic back to Reach ATS’ day-to-day view of hiring. As an ATS, Reach sees hundreds of thousands of applications move through end-to-end recruitment each year, from attraction through to onboarding.

Right to Work checks sit at the point where talent, risk and compliance all meet. They influence:

• How quickly you can move from offer to start date

• Whether you meet your legal duties as an employer

• The experience and trust you create for candidates

With new legislation coming and enforcement ramping up, Hector framed three aims for the session:

1. Give a clear view of what is changing around Right to Work in 2025–2026.

2. Explore where employers are most at risk of getting checks wrong.

3. Share practical steps to tighten processes now, not when an audit letter lands.

He also reminded the audience that many of Reach ATS’ digital ID features are powered by Rightcheck, which is why the two teams came together for this session.

What is changing in Right to Work

Paul started by setting the scene from a legislative point of view. Immigration and illegal working have moved up the political agenda, and that is showing up in employer duties and enforcement.

One core point has not changed:

“You are still going to be responsible for that right to work check.”

There are, however, several important shifts on the horizon:

• The scope of who you must check is widening.
  Paul explained that future changes are expected to extend checks beyond direct employees, into groups such as self-employed workers, contractors and agency staff. The current law did not fully capture modern work patterns like the gig economy, so the definition of who you need to check is being updated.

• You cannot rely on others in the chain.
  Even if a worker comes via an agency or third party, the liability may still sit with your organisation if checks are not done correctly.

• Enforcement activity is increasing.
  Paul highlighted a recent announcement of 11,000 enforcement visits planned for 2025, a 51 percent increase, which translates into a 63 percent rise in illegal working enforcement. Employers should assume that an audit visit is likely at some point in 2026, not a distant risk.

His message was simple: you cannot park Right to Work until “things are clearer”. You need to get your head around the changes now and build a standard, repeatable process.

Speed to hire, imposters and remote risk

James picked up the theme from the perspective of hiring teams. Many attendees will have felt this tension:

• You are under pressure to reduce time to hire.

• You also carry the risk if checks are rushed or missed.

James shared that two risks are coming up far more often than a year ago:

1. Time to hire versus thorough checks.
   Busy HR and talent teams are trying to keep offers moving, while also managing checks for Right to Work, DBS and references. When hiring is stretched, these checks can slip or be treated as a box-ticking exercise, which increases exposure.

2. A noticeable rise in imposter candidates.
   With remote and hybrid hiring, it is easier for people to exaggerate experience or present false identities.

“What this does is it makes it riskier for employers… you need to be sure you are hiring the right person, not just the fastest option.”

James also warned about a pattern some clients had fallen into: completing Right to Work checks at interview and then treating them as done, without confirming that the person who later joins is the same person they saw at interview. That gap is where imposters can slip through.

The key is to have clear touchpoints in your process to confirm identity and spot inconsistencies early, rather than assuming “someone else has checked it”.

Fraud, AI and why manual checks are struggling

Hector asked whether companies are seeing more fraud as AI tools become more powerful. James’ answer: yes, and some of the stories are worrying.

He talked about:

• Candidates submitting images where they put their hand in front of their face to distort liveness checks.

• False identities being presented at a convincing level, not just at the point of hire, but later in the employment lifecycle as well.

• A client who discovered an entire team had been replaced by false imposters.

Paul added that even when documents themselves are genuine, digital routes such as e-visas present new challenges. It is harder for humans to spot issues in a digital status, which is why technology needs to be used in the right way.

“The answer is facial recognition… you need a standardised process so you know where it is going to go wrong.”

Both speakers agreed: you can still do manual checks, and guidance allows for that. But as fraud becomes more sophisticated, organisations relying solely on manual, visual checks are finding it harder to keep up.

Sectors under pressure

Hector asked whether some sectors are more exposed than others.

James’ view was that every sector has its own risk profile, but certain employers are under constant pressure to recruit quickly and at scale. In those settings, checks are more likely to be rushed or applied inconsistently, especially when they are manual and spread across many managers and sites.

He shared examples of:

• Head office teams trying to manage guidance centrally while local managers interpret it differently.

• Processes drifting over time, so that each manager “does their own version”, creating uneven risk across the business.

A central theme here was consistency. Where there is no consistent approach, and checks are left to individuals who may not fully understand the guidance, risk increases.

What “good” Right to Work looks like

Hector then asked what good Right to Work compliance looks like in practice. What are the examples that make Paul and James think, “this company has done it right”?

James highlighted three elements:

1. A consistent, end-to-end process

   “A strong right-to-work process has to be consistent and built into the full hiring journey, rather than just a one-off task.”

   Right to Work should not sit off to one side. It needs to be integrated from the moment you request documents, through to onboarding and record-keeping.

2. Clear ownership and reliable methods
   HR teams usually understand why Right to Work matters and what can happen if it is done wrong. The risk comes when the task is delegated to someone with little context.

   “If you delegate that task to one person in your business that hasn’t a clue what they’re doing… you’ve got a single point of failure.”

   Checks should be carried out using reliable and compliant methods that follow the Home Office framework. Technology can help here, not just by validating documents, but by reducing the number of people who handle sensitive data.

3. Using technology to reduce manual risk
   James pointed to the value of using a platform that applies the rules consistently, presents guidance in clear language, and removes manual steps that are prone to error.

   Many business cases they see compare the cost of fines “in the tens of thousands of pounds” with the cost of using a compliant, tech-supported process. Often, the tech solution is significantly cheaper in hindsight.

Storing records and preparing for audits

Hector also raised a practical question: how long should Right to Work documents be stored, who should have access, and what will auditors look for?

Paul’s answer drew directly from the employer’s guide:

• For employees you hire, you must keep their Right to Work documentation for the entire period of employment and for two years after they leave.

• UKVI enforcement can ask to see all checks for that person up to two years after they have left the business.

• For people you do not employ, you still have an obligation to retain checks for a period, to show that you followed the correct process at the time.

Paul stressed that enforcement visits rarely happen by chance.

“The downside is they’re usually turning up at your doorstep because they know something is wrong already.”

If a person is found to be working illegally, your only protection is being able to show that you carried out the correct checks in the first place, to the required standard.

“Forget technology, everything else. Your only protection is having the right checks in place in the first place, because then you have a statutory excuse… Without that statutory excuse, you’re liable for a £45,000 fine first time, £60,000 repeat offence.”

Automating storage and audit trails through a system, rather than relying on scattered local files, helps ensure you can evidence when checks were done and by whom.

Candidate experience and accessibility

It is easy to see Right to Work as something that only protects employers. Paul reminded the audience that candidates are part of this picture too.

“The candidate doesn’t want to do this check, but you both have to. So make it easy, make it acceptable, accessible, and clear.”

Rightcheck’s own data shows around 85 percent of checks now being completed remotely, with the remaining 15 percent done face to face. That flexibility helps candidates complete checks from home, at a time that works for them, while still meeting compliance standards.

The message for HR teams was clear: design the process so it is:

• Easy to follow

• Clear about what is needed and why

• Respectful of candidates’ time and data

If you can blend compliance with a smooth candidate experience, you reduce drop-off and show new starters that your organisation takes both trust and fairness seriously.

Modern slavery and wider duty of care

Later in the session, Hector circled back to a note he had made on risk: modern slavery. He asked what it means for employers in 2026 and how Right to Work fits into this.

James shared recent figures showing nearly 5,000 potential victims of exploitation and modern slavery reported across sectors, with care being the second highest exploited industry in 2024. These figures include people who have been coerced, deceived or forced into work, often in very vulnerable situations.

“Traditional identity checks and right-to-work checks, obviously, are still essential, but sometimes aren’t enough on their own if you’re dealing with cases where someone has been trafficked, or coerced into employment.”

Employers are starting to realise they need:

• Strong checks at the point of hire

• Ongoing checks and awareness throughout the hiring lifecycle

• Ways to spot potential vulnerabilities and protect both their business and the individuals involved

James gave a concrete example: bank account verification checks. If wages are being paid into an account not linked to the person on the contract, that may be a sign that someone else is controlling them.

Paul added that Rightcheck is working with government teams on modern slavery to highlight key indicators that someone might be in a vulnerable position, and to agree how to signpost them to specialist support.

If you believe someone is a potential victim, escalation has to be handled with care so they do not face further harm from those controlling them. Having clear internal routes and external partners matters.

Practical steps for teams with tight budgets

Not every organisation has an in-house legal team or a large compliance budget. Hector asked what smaller or stretched teams can do now.

James acknowledged the cost element, but pointed back to the comfort and protection that a compliant, tech-supported process offers. In many cases, the comparison between potential fines and the cost of a system makes the investment easier to defend.

Paul encouraged organisations to:

• Map who is involved in Right to Work today and where the “single points of failure” sit.

• Decide which parts of the process can be standardised centrally.

• Use digital tools where they add clarity, reduce manual handling of documents, and store a clean audit trail.

Rightcheck, as Paul put it, is “part and part of maintaining that compliance”, particularly when checks need to happen across multiple sites, warehouses or field locations.

Key takeaways for HR, recruitment and compliance teams

Across the session, a few themes came up again and again:

1. Right to Work responsibilities are not going away.
   Employers remain responsible for checks, and the definition of who you must check is likely to extend beyond direct employees.

2. Enforcement is rising.
   With 11,000 visits planned in 2025 and a 63 percent increase in illegal working enforcement, it is safer to assume you will face an audit at some point.

3. Manual, scattered processes create risk.
   Relying on individual managers or local offices to interpret guidance leads to inconsistency and single points of failure.

4. Technology should support, not replace, people.
   Digital identity tools, facial recognition and platforms like Rightcheck help standardise checks and surface guidance, but they sit alongside trained humans, they do not remove the need for them.

5. Modern slavery and exploitation are real hiring risks.
   Right to Work checks are essential but not always sufficient. Employers need awareness, extra checks where needed, and clear routes to escalate concerns.

6. Candidate experience still matters.
   Making checks clear, accessible and as simple as possible is part of building trust with new hires.

7. Your only real protection is doing the check right.
   If someone is found to be working illegally, your statutory excuse depends on having followed the correct process at the time.

Where Reach ATS and Rightcheck can help

If this webinar has raised questions about your own Right to Work process, both Reach ATS and Rightcheck are here to help.

• Reach ATS supports you across the whole hiring journey, from attraction through to offer and onboarding, with tools to build consistent, compliant workflows.

• Rightcheck provides digital identity and Right to Work checks that are built to follow Home Office guidance, helping you standardise checks across sites and roles while keeping candidate data secure.

Together, the integration between Reach ATS and Rightcheck makes it easier to:

• Build Right to Work into your hiring steps in a clear, repeatable way

• Reduce manual handling of documents and keep cleaner audit trails

• Support remote and in-person checks without losing sight of compliance

If you would like to:

• Review how your current process measures up against the 2026 changes

• Map where your own risks and single points of failure sit

• Or explore how Reach ATS and Rightcheck can support your Right to Work strategy

Get in touch with the Reach team or speak to your account manager to continue the conversation.