The Home Office Crackdown on Care Home Sponsor Licences with Sabina Kauser

Auto-generated using YouTube's transcript and OpenAI (accuracy cannot be guaranteed)

Hi and welcome to this latest immigration law conversation. Today I have the privilege of being joined once again by Sabina Cowzer. Sabina is a partner at Ward Hadaway and today we're going to talk about a really pressing issue and that's the home office crackdown on care home sponsor licenses. We're going to look at what's driving this and what people can do about it.

So, Sabina, thank you for joining me once again. For those of you who've not met you, tell us a bit about you and what you do.

Thank you for inviting me back, Adam. As Adam said, my name is Sabina Costa. I'm a partner at Ward Hadaway. I specialize in business and personal immigration with a particular interest in adult social care. As a firm and a department, we advise employers on all aspects of sponsorship compliance, skilled worker visa processes, right to work obligations, and generally navigating the home office enforcement policies. So much of my work involves helping providers protect their licenses, respond to suspensions or revocations, and assist in building robust compliance systems.

I think that's so important to protect the licenses because often people come to us when it's too late and either suspension or revocation action has already taken place. What prompted me to suggest this topic today was an article about this topic you'd written on LinkedIn about the home office crackdown on care home sponsor licenses. So give us an idea of what's happening in the social care sector in terms of compliance issues.

Yeah. So it appears the care sector really is going through one of the toughest compliance environments that we've seen to date. The Home Office seems to have shifted to an intelligent monitoring process and is relying on PAYE, HMRC, and other cross-government data to identify discrepancies quickly and at a larger scale. As a result of that, enforcement action has sharply risen, and we've seen from 2024 to 2025 it has doubled.

What's most significant is that issues that previously were regarded as minor things like late reporting or missing HR documents now frequently lead to immediate suspension or mandatory revocation. So for care providers, there is really no margin for error. Compliance needs to be watertight at the moment.

I think that's so important what you raise and the fact that the Home Office is using PAYE data because what I've seen recently is discrepancies in terms of salaries and then challenging whether there are genuine vacancies because people have not been given the hours they should have done on their contract or the cause. Why do you think that the social care sector is such a focus for the home office at the moment?

I think there's several reasons, Adam. One of the things really is the high reliance on overseas recruitment. Because of the shortage of care workers, social care has issued the highest volumes of certificates of sponsorship in the UK. So I think that's a trigger factor. Then there are systemic risks. For example, the home office identifies recurring issues. They've seen patterns of underpayment or incorrect job roles. And we've had the whole concern about worker vulnerability and illegal working.

So that's again triggered tighter compliance, especially in the care sector. Then we've had the recent court ruling with the Prestwick Care case. The courts have confirmed that the home office doesn't need to consider whether the revocation of the license can lead to a negative impact on the business or the residents themselves. I think that has given the home office the backing to think, “Okay, we can have a hard hand with this.”

Also, broadly, legal working enforcement has increased. We've seen spikes in civil penalties. So they're clearly prioritizing high-risk sectors, and care is one of them.

I think that's absolutely right. There's this crackdown on the sector with sponsor licenses. We've seen the crackdown on the care workers themselves with, first, restrictions on dependents, then stopping overseas recruitment, and in the proposals for settlement saying care workers are going to have to do 15 years to get to settlement.

Absolutely.

I think you're right as well, case law. For anybody who hasn't seen my webinars looking at the key cases from last year, I cover Prestwick, where the Court of Appeal confirmed it doesn't have to be a global assessment of the impact on revocation, which is what Sabina was talking about. It did helpfully confirm that the Home Office has to act with procedural fairness and what's called Balajigari fairness, and that's something we can sometimes use to challenge these revocation decisions. There was also a helpful case from the Administrative Court called Prestige Social Care, looking at when the home office had to show dishonesty if they're alleging non-genuine roles. So some helpful case law. Thanks for highlighting that.

What are the typical issues you're coming across in practice that are leading to licenses being suspended or revoked, Sabina?

From my work with providers and cases we've seen nationally across our other offices, I think there are a few factors. Salaries and discrepancies, for example where there have been deductions, reduced hours, or role changes which meant that workers’ pay has fallen below the skilled worker minimum requirements, and genuine vacancy concerns. That includes, for example, where jobs that are actually being carried out may not match what was on the original certificate of sponsorship, or where the home office believes that the role may not have actually existed in the first place.

Then something that employers do have control over, but often get picked up on, is record keeping and reporting failures. Missing right to work checks, outdated documents on HR files, or failure to report changes like job titles, location, or salaries. These all now attract much stronger sanctions than previously.

Another key area is prohibited fee practices and worker vulnerability. As you recall, in December 2024, employers are not able to recover certificate of sponsorship or license fees from workers. So if there is any evidence of financial exploitation or inappropriate recruitment fees, that would amount to a serious compliance breach. If we look at these issues even in isolation, they are enough to trigger immediate suspension and, in some cases, mandatory revocation.

I think that's so right. On my other screen, I have the home office guidance. If you look at Annex One of the guidance, circumstances where they will revoke your license, often it’s these mandatory grounds. When they come for judicial review, these are very hard to challenge if there's been a mandatory breach. You've highlighted right to work checks; I know you've recently written an article on LinkedIn, so people should check Sabina's LinkedIn for that. These are so important, as well as proposals to expand right to work checks and updating the sponsor management system. Often, those are the things causing problems. What you said about genuine vacancies—whether people are actually doing the role they were sponsored for, whether the role exists, and whether they are getting the hours they should—these are crucial.

Let's look at some practical steps. What steps can care providers, and those who have sponsor licenses, whether in the care sector or not, take now to avoid suspension or revocation? I know we were chatting earlier about a case with a home officer going straight to revocation and skipping the suspension stage.

This applies to all employers that have sponsor licenses. First, focus on strengthening internal governance and audits. We advise clients to conduct regular compliance reviews. Check payroll against certificates of sponsorship to make sure they are still accurate. If they have changed, put a note on the SMS system with a reason, and make sure the roles still accurately reflect what was on the certificate of sponsorship.

Standardize right to work and onboarding processes. Have robust procedures using only home office approved checks. Make sure evidence is retained for the correct length of time. Ensure employment contracts reflect the certificates of sponsorship because that's how they triangulate compliance.

Be aware of the sponsor management system. Keep a checklist of what needs to be reported and the timeframes for reports. Changes in salaries, hours, locations, duties, etc., must be reported promptly and backed up with documentation retained in HR files.

Also, make sure recruitment practices are correct. Do not recover cost or license fees from workers. Avoid arrangements where labour appears to be supplied to third parties. Overall, a well-structured compliance framework is essential. This is not a tick-box or optional exercise; it is necessary to remain compliant.

Having those procedures in place, backed up by evidence, is just essential.

Sabina, that's really helpful. I think you've highlighted the risks and what's happening out there and some of the strategies we can put into place to avoid this.

In terms of people reaching out to you and how you can help sponsor license holders, how can people get in touch with you? What help can you offer?

I am on LinkedIn, and I can share my email with Adam as well. Myself and my colleagues in our immigration team at Ward Hadaway support organizations regardless of sector. Whether you have a sponsor license or not, right to work checks still apply because you might be employing migrant workers who are not skilled workers. It is important to be up to date with everything.

We support audits, whether sponsor license audits or right to work checks, to ensure correct policies and procedures are in place. We assist in defending suspensions and revocations. If you have had one and think there has been procedural unfairness, or you want to challenge it, we can draft representations on your behalf.

As a preventative measure, we also offer training for HR teams and managers to make sure you are ahead of the game and understand what is expected. Relevant staff with responsibilities know where they stand. Overall, we help design a compliant recruitment and onboarding system to prevent issues. Prevention is better than cure. Even if you haven't been asked for further information and haven't faced an interview or license revocation, now is the time to get everything in order so if the home office comes knocking, your house is in order. Please reach out via LinkedIn or email. I’m happy to help.

Now, I'll put all of Sabina's details below this video and a link to her article about this on LinkedIn so you can connect with her on that platform. I think what Sabina said is so right—get those audits done so everything is in place. The home office is knocking in this sector in large numbers. From my perspective as counsel, judicial review is not often a cure because, looking at the case law, very few care home cases have been successful. Courts give a wide margin to the home office in the regulation of sponsor licenses.

Sabina, thank you so much for joining me today. Really helpful and practical stuff.

No problem at all. Thank you for having me. See you soon.