UK Illegal Working Rules Extend Beyond Employees From 1 October 2026

UK illegal working rules extend beyond the traditional contract of employment from 1 October 2026, when a new section 14A of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 comes into force. Brought into effect by a commencement instrument under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, the change reaches engagers of individual workers, users of individual sub-contractors, and online matching services that connect service providers with customers for a fee or commission. For employers, in-house counsel and compliance teams the practical message is immediate: audit every non-payrolled arrangement, extend right-to-work checks to contractors and platform-based workers, and retain the evidence needed to establish a statutory excuse.

This guide sets out the statutory framework, the sectors most exposed, the penalties in play, and the steps to take before commencement.

What changes on 1 October 2026, the statutory background

The illegal working civil penalty and criminal offence regime has, until now, been anchored to the concept of employment. The changes coming into effect show how far the UK illegal working rules extend beyond that starting point. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 inserts a new section 14A into the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IA 2006), and the relevant commencement provision brings that section into force from 1 October 2026. Practitioners should confirm the precise commencement instrument and date against legislation.gov.uk, as commencement dates can be revised.

The effect is structural rather than cosmetic. Sections 15 to 24 of IA 2006, the civil penalty scheme for employing an adult subject to immigration control who has no permission to work, and the related offences, historically applied only where there was a contract of employment. Section 14A extends the reach of that regime so that liability can arise across a range of engagements that are not contracts of employment at all. That is why the UK illegal working rules extend beyond employees to categories that many organisations have never subjected to right-to-work checks.

The legislative instruments to cite

Two instruments matter. First, the primary statute: the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, which contains sections 15 to 24 and the point at which section 14A is inserted. Second, the relevant commencement regulations made under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which fix the date on which section 14A takes effect. Any compliance policy or board paper on this topic should cite both instruments, with their section anchors and the current commencement instrument as published on legislation.gov.uk, so that internal reviewers can trace the source directly.

Why the change matters for enforcement

Enforcement of the illegal working rules from 2026 will now capture business models that previously fell outside the regime because they relied on self-employment, contracting or intermediation rather than employment. The Home Office’s illegal working enforcement guidance sets out how the department approaches inspections, notices and penalties. The extension means that the same enforcement machinery, civil penalty notices, information requests and, where thresholds are met, criminal investigation, can now be pointed at engagers and platforms. In practical terms, the organisations most at risk are those that assumed right-to-work checks were somebody else’s responsibility. The UK illegal working rules extend beyond the payroll precisely to close that gap.

Who is caught by section 14A, statutory definitions and legal text

Section 14A defines the newly captured relationships. Broadly, three categories of engager fall within scope from commencement:

• Engagers under a worker’s contract. A person who engages an individual under a worker’s contract, that is, an arrangement under which an individual personally performs work or services but which is not a contract of employment in the classic sense.
• Users of an individual sub-contractor. A person who engages an individual sub-contractor to carry out work, capturing labour-only and personal-service subcontracting within supply chains.
• Online matching services. An online matching service that provides the details of an individual service provider and charges a fee or commission for doing so.

These definitions are the heart of the reform, and they explain how the UK illegal working rules extend beyond employees into the wider engagement economy. Each rests on a defined term, “worker’s contract”, “individual sub-contractor”, “online matching service” and “service provider”, and the precise wording controls scope. Advisers should read the inserted text of section 14A on legislation.gov.uk, together with the applicable commencement instrument, rather than relying on summaries.

The text of section 14A, reading the definitions carefully

The statutory definitions do a good deal of work. A “worker’s contract” turns on personal performance of work or services, distinguishing genuine business-to-business supply from personal engagement. An “individual sub-contractor” focuses on the individual carrying out the work personally within a chain, which is why labour-only subcontracting is exposed while genuinely corporate subcontracting sits differently. An “online matching service” is defined by two features working together: it provides the details of an individual service provider, and it charges a fee or commission. The presence of the fee or commission is the trigger; a service that merely publishes information without charging for the match is on the other side of the line.

A “service provider” is the individual whose details are matched to a customer.

Because the definitions are technical, the section 14A framework rewards close reading. Where a genuine question of interpretation arises, for example, whether a particular platform “charges a fee or commission” within the meaning of the section, it is prudent to treat the position as arguable and to document the reasoning, rather than to assume the business sits outside scope.

The carve-out and its implications

Section 14A contains an important carve-out addressing the position where the individual undertakes to perform the work or services for a person other than the engager, in other words, where the engager is not the person for whom the individual actually works. The practical effect is to prevent liability cascading indiscriminately along every link of a chain and to focus responsibility on the party that stands in the relevant relationship with the individual. Advisers should read the precise wording of the relevant subsection as enacted.

The carve-out is not a general escape route. It operates on the specific facts of who the individual undertakes to work for, and it must be read against the definitions above. Organisations should not assume the carve-out applies simply because there is an intermediary in the picture; the question is whether the statutory conditions are met on the facts. Where the carve-out is relied upon, the safest course is to keep contemporaneous evidence of the contractual structure and of who the individual actually undertook to work for. As this is a new provision, its boundaries will be tested in practice, and a cautious documentary approach is the sensible default.

Practical implications, how UK illegal working rules extend beyond employees by sector

The abstract definitions become sharper when mapped onto real business models. The following sectors face the most immediate change, and each requires a tailored response.

Gig and platform businesses

Ride-hailing, courier, delivery and tasking platforms are squarely within the frame. Where a platform provides the details of an individual service provider, a driver, rider or tasker, and charges a fee or commission for the match, it may fall within the online matching service definition. The fee or commission is the critical trigger. A platform that positions itself as a pure marketplace, taking no fee or commission for the match itself, has a stronger argument that it sits outside the definition, but the analysis depends on how charges are actually structured, not on labels used in terms and conditions.

Platform operators should note that questions of worker status have long been contested in this sector. The Supreme Court’s decision in Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5 illustrates how the reality of a relationship can differ from its contractual description. While that case concerned employment rights rather than immigration liability, it demonstrates why platforms cannot rely on drafting alone to place workers beyond regulatory reach. Illustrative mitigation:

• A delivery platform charges couriers a commission on each job. Because it provides courier details to customers and charges a commission, it should assume it is within scope and verify each courier’s right to work.
• A listings site publishes tradespeople’s profiles for a flat subscription and takes no commission on jobs booked. Its position is more arguable, but it should document the analysis and monitor how any transactional fees develop.

Staffing and recruitment agencies

Agencies, umbrella companies and other intermediaries must map who is the engager and who is the end-client, because that determines who must conduct the right to work check on the individual. The UK illegal working rules extend beyond employees to reach the party that engages the individual worker, and in many agency models that will be the agency rather than the ultimate client. Umbrella arrangements add complexity because the individual may be engaged under an overarching contract while working at successive client sites.

• An agency supplies a temporary worker to a warehouse under a worker’s contract with the individual. The agency should conduct and retain the right-to-work check and evidence its statutory excuse.
• An umbrella company engages the individual and supplies them via an agency to a client. The parties should agree, in writing, who carries out the check and how evidence is shared, so that no link in the chain assumes another has done it.

Subcontracting chains in construction and care

Construction supply chains frequently rely on labour-only subcontracting, and care providers routinely engage carers through a mix of employment, agency and self-employed arrangements. Both sectors face a cascade-of-responsibility risk. A principal contractor engaging individual sub-contractors, or a care provider engaging individual carers under worker’s contracts, will need to consider whether it is now the party required to hold a statutory excuse.

• A main contractor engages a self-employed bricklayer directly for a project. Because this is an individual sub-contractor engagement, the contractor should carry out a right-to-work check on that individual.
• A domiciliary care provider engages carers on self-employed terms to visit clients. Each carer’s right to work should be checked and the evidence retained before work begins.

Hospitality, events and seasonal labour via intermediaries

Short-term and seasonal supply chains create particular traps because turnover is high and engagements are informal. Events staffing, hospitality cover and seasonal harvest labour are often sourced through intermediaries at short notice, and the temptation to defer checks until “after the shift” is exactly the risk the reform targets. Any organisation engaging individuals through these routes should build right-to-work verification into onboarding so that no individual starts work before the check is complete. The recurring theme across all sectors is the same: the UK illegal working rules extend beyond employees, and the party that engages the individual must be able to prove it checked.

Civil penalties, criminal offence and enforcement approach

The extension of the regime brings the existing penalty framework in sections 15 to 24 of IA 2006 to bear on the newly captured engagers. The civil penalty is a financial notice imposed on the responsible party for each individual found to be working illegally where no statutory excuse is in place.

Home Office guidance in the illegal working enforcement collection sets out the current starting points. Following an increase that took effect in early 2024, the starting point for a first breach rose to up to £45,000 per illegal worker, and up to £60,000 per worker for a repeat breach within three years. These figures should always be verified against the current gov.uk guidance rather than press summaries, because Home Office figures are periodically revised.

How penalties are calculated and mitigation factors

The final penalty reflects mitigating and aggravating factors. Reductions are typically available where the responsible party reported suspected illegal working, cooperated with the investigation, or has effective right-to-work check practices in place. Conversely, previous breaches and failures to cooperate push penalties towards the maximum. A responsible party that receives a civil penalty notice may object to the Home Office and, if unsuccessful, appeal to the court. Because the UK illegal working rules extend beyond employees for the first time, engagers who have never faced this regime should build objection and appeal awareness into their compliance response now.

Enforcement practice and the likely approach to non-employment cases

Criminal liability remains available where an organisation or individual knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that a person had no right to work. That is a higher threshold than the civil penalty, which is effectively strict subject to the statutory excuse. It is reasonable to expect that enforcement in the newly captured sectors will initially focus on the most obvious high-volume models, platforms and staffing supply chains, where large numbers of individuals are engaged with limited historical checking. Demonstrating a functioning checking process is itself a form of risk mitigation, since the absence of any checking system is likely to be treated as a serious aggravating feature.

Statutory excuse: right to work checks for non-employees

The statutory excuse is the mechanism that protects a responsible party from a civil penalty. It arises where a compliant right-to-work check was carried out before the individual began work, in accordance with the Home Office’s right to work checks: an employer’s guide. Extending that discipline to contractors and platform workers is the single most important operational change.

How the check works for different engagement types

• Self-employed contractor or sole trader engaged directly. The engager should carry out a right-to-work check on the individual before work starts, using an accepted document check or the relevant online verification route, and retain the evidence.
• Contractor supplied through an agency or umbrella. The parties should agree who conducts the check. Where the agency or umbrella is the engager under a worker’s contract, that party should hold the statutory excuse; the client should obtain assurance and, where practical, evidence of the check.
• Platform worker matched via an online service. Where the platform falls within the online matching service definition, it should verify the service provider’s right to work before enabling them to accept work, and retain a dated record.

Documents and evidence to secure a statutory excuse

A compliant check follows one of the routes set out in the employer’s guide: a manual check of original acceptable documents, a check using a certified Identity Service Provider for certain document types, or an online check using a share code where the individual’s status is held digitally. Whichever route is used, the responsible party should keep a clear, dated copy of the evidence, a legible copy or scan of documents, or the online check confirmation, and record the date the check was carried out. Statutory excuse evidence that is undated or illegible may not protect the organisation.

Remote checks, digital identity and record-keeping

Digital and remote verification are permitted only where the Home Office guidance allows them and only through accepted routes. Relying on an informal video call or an unverified photograph will not establish an excuse. Records should be retained for the duration of the engagement and for a defined period afterwards, in line with the employer’s guide, and stored securely to meet data protection obligations. A concise statutory-excuse checklist for non-employees:

• Confirm the correct check route for the individual’s document or status type.
• Carry out the check before the individual starts work, never retrospectively.
• Record the date of the check and the identity of the person who conducted it.
• Retain a clear, dated copy of the documents or online confirmation.
• Diarise any follow-up check where permission is time-limited.
• Store evidence securely and consistently across every engagement type.

Comparison table: obligations across engagement types

Audit before commencement, what to review and evidence to capture

Time-limited action is required. A prioritised audit before commencement should cover:

• Map the supply chain. Identify every arrangement that is not a contract of employment, contractors, sub-contractors, agency workers, umbrella arrangements and any platforms used to source labour.
• Review contracts. Examine worker’s contracts, subcontractor agreements and platform terms to determine who engages the individual and who therefore must hold the statutory excuse.
• Sample right-to-work checks. Test existing checks for non-employees, identify gaps and take corrective action before commencement.
• Adapt IT and HR systems. Ensure onboarding and records systems can capture, date and retain evidence for non-payrolled engagements.
• Train and escalate. Brief managers, recruiters and operations teams, and establish an escalation route for doubtful cases.

Minimum evidence folder from commencement

From commencement, the responsible party for each non-employee engagement should hold: a dated copy of the right-to-work check evidence; a record of the check route used and who conducted it; the contract or terms establishing the engagement; and, where the section 14A carve-out is relied upon, documentation showing who the individual undertook to work for. Keeping this folder in a consistent format across engagement types is the practical proof that the extended UK illegal working rules have been addressed.

Quick compliance playbook

1. Assign a named owner for illegal working compliance across all engagement types.
2. Run a supplier and platform map to identify every non-employment arrangement.
3. Update contracts to allocate right-to-work responsibility clearly.
4. Implement a contractor and platform-worker right-to-work checklist in onboarding.
5. Test digital verification routes against current Home Office guidance.
6. Retain dated evidence in a standard folder and diarise follow-up checks.

Conclusion and next steps

From commencement, expected to be 1 October 2026, the UK illegal working rules extend beyond the payroll to reach engagers, individual sub-contractors and fee-charging online matching services, importing the full civil penalty and offence regime of sections 15 to 24 of IA 2006 into arrangements that were previously outside it. The exposure is greatest for platforms, staffing agencies and supply chains that have never routinely checked non-employees, and the carve-out will require careful, fact-specific analysis rather than blanket reliance. The organisations that fare best will be those that audit now, extend right-to-work checks to every engagement type, and retain dated evidence to secure a statutory excuse.

Because liability turns on precise definitions and individual facts, and because commencement details may be revised, tailored advice from a corporate immigration specialist is strongly recommended before the rules take effect. For further reading, see the Corporate immigration: UK employers’ 2026 guide.

Sources

1. Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006
2. legislation.gov.uk, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 and commencement regulations
3. Home Office, Right to work checks: an employer’s guide
4. GOV.UK, Employers: illegal working penalties
5. The Law Society, Immigration guidance
6. Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5