Do You Need a Right to Work Check for a Self-Employed Contractor?

Key Takeaways

• From 1 October 2026 the Right to Work Scheme covers three further engagements: individuals under a worker's contract, individual sub-contractors, and service providers matched to customers by an online matching service. Section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was commenced for that date by regulations made on 24 June 2026.
• The contract label does not decide it. The final Employer's guide of 1 October 2026 says consideration should be given to the substance of the arrangement and how it operates in practice, and that the description adopted by the parties will not by itself determine what responsibilities arise.
• The carve-out is real. The guidance does not apply to individuals operating an independent business, in their own name or through their own company, who contract directly with clients to supply goods or services. The self-employed plumber and the designer invoicing through their own personal service company are the Home Office's examples of arrangements outside the Scheme, although Annex C of the final guide says there is no blanket exclusion for anyone working through a personal service company.
• The commencement rule is narrower than it looks. For the three new categories a civil penalty may only be imposed where the engagement commenced on or after 1 October 2026. That covers the new civil penalty and nothing else, not criminal liability and not an engagement that was really employment.
• You can delegate the checking. You cannot delegate the liability. The guidance says the practical activity may be passed to staff, workers or agency workers, but the employer remains liable if the individual is working illegally and the check was not carried out as prescribed.
• Extended liability under the new section 15A reaches a business with no contract with the worker and no knowledge the worker exists. A main contractor, a logistics company that outsources, or an online matching service can all be treated as the employer.
• The way out of extended liability is prescribed in law. Regulations made on 24 June 2026 require a written statement of contract terms, substitution controls and identity verification. A warranty that your supplier complies with immigration law is not one of them.
• Penalty levels are unchanged in the revised code of practice in force from 1 October 2026: £45,000 per worker for a first breach and £60,000 for a repeat breach, before reductions.
• Everything is now in force. The Act and the regulations took effect on 1 October 2026, the two revised codes of practice came into force the same day, and the Home Office published the final Employer's Guide on 1 October 2026.
• If you are unsure whether an engagement is in scope, start with our free Right to Work Check tool and talk to us about our Right to Work Check service for a documented view of your contractor, agency and supply chain arrangements.

Introduction

If you use self-employed contractors, subcontractors, agency staff or platform workers, you have probably been told that right to work checks now apply to them. That is half right, and the wrong half is the expensive one. From 1 October 2026 the Right to Work Scheme reaches well past the payroll, but it does not reach every self-employed person you pay.

This post answers the classification question. Is this engagement in scope or not? We work through the test the Home Office has published, the carve-out for people running their own business, the three new categories, what happens to contractors already on your books, and the contractual safeguards that decide whether a business further up a supply chain can be penalised for someone else's worker.

One distinction needs making first, because it is widely blurred. The statutory change is confirmed: section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was commenced for 1 October 2026 by regulations made on 24 June 2026, and the regulations setting out what employers must do were made the same day. The final guidance explaining it was published on 1 October 2026, after drafts of 16 July and 11 September 2026. Every passage of the draft quoted in this post appears in the final guide unchanged. For the background on what changed and why, see our post on the new right to work checks for gig economy and construction workers.

What Changed, in One Paragraph

Section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 does two things. It inserts a new section 14A into the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, widening what counts as employing someone so that it takes in three further arrangements. It also inserts a new section 15A, letting civil penalty liability travel up a chain of contracts to a business that never contracted with the worker. Section 48 came into force on 1 October 2026 under commencement regulations. What employers must do to obtain protection sits in separate regulations made on 24 June 2026 and laid before Parliament on 30 June 2026, amending the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) Order 2007 and in force the same date. Before 1 October 2026 much commentary called the whole package draft. The obligations never were, and since 1 October 2026 the guidance and codes explaining them are final too.

None of it changes the check itself. The three prescribed methods, the Home Office online checking service, the document lists and the follow-up rules all continue as they are. For those mechanics, see our complete guide to right to work checks and our share code guide.

The Test That Decides It: Substance, Not Labels

The most useful sentence in the final Employer's guide of 1 October 2026 is this one: "Consideration should be given to the substance of the arrangements and how they operate in practice. The contractual description or label adopted by the parties involved will not, by itself, determine what responsibilities may arise under the Scheme."

The word "self-employed" in your contract does not answer the question, and neither does an invoice, a UTR number or a clause saying the individual is in business on their own account. The reverse holds too: calling someone a contractor does not put them in scope. What matters is how the arrangement works in practice. The final guidance sets out the factors it says should be considered, and states that no single factor is determinative.

Two things follow. If your contracts have not been reviewed since they were drafted, the paper version and the operating version have probably drifted, and the drift is what gets assessed. If you cannot answer the substitution question for a contract type, pull that one first.

When No Check Is Required: The Independent Business Carve-Out

The final guidance says plainly: "This guidance does not apply to individuals who are operating an independent business either in their own name or through their own company and who contract directly with clients or customers to provide goods or services." It extends that to services provided directly to the public and to ordinary business to business contracts, "where the arrangement is for the purchase of a service rather than the employment of an individual to carry out work or services".

The two examples the Home Office gives

Example 5 is a self-employed plumber called to fix a leaking tap in a private home, who advertises to the public through a range of channels and works for multiple customers. No right to work check is required, because the plumber is operating an independent business. Example 6 is a graphic designer engaged for a project through their own personal service company, which contracts with the client and invoices in its own name. No check is required by the client company, because it is contracting with the company for services rather than engaging the individual.

A usable test for the awkward middle

Neither example tells you what to do with a borderline engagement. These five questions convert the published factors into something you can apply. They are our reading of the guidance, not a Home Office test.

• Does this person hold themselves out to a market, or only to you? A business with its own clients, marketing and pricing is what the carve-out describes. Someone whose only customer is you, working hours you set, is not.
• Did the work arrive through a platform, agency or intermediary? The guidance says individuals obtaining work that way, where they are not operating an independent business in their own right, may still be in scope.
• Are you buying an outcome or a pair of hands? Ask what happens if the individual is unavailable next week. If the supplier sends someone else and the job still gets done, you are buying an outcome.
• Is there a personal service company, and is it genuine? The guidance puts that route outside the Scheme, but only where the client contracts with the company rather than the individual.
• Does the contract permit substitution? If it does, the carve-out is not the end of the analysis. Substitution is dealt with separately under extended liability and can bring an engager back in.

Where a case still sits on the line, the safe course is a check. The limit on that approach is the Code of practice for employers: avoiding unlawful discrimination while preventing illegal working. Checks must be applied consistently across everyone in a given engagement type, not only to people you assume are migrants.

The Three Engagements Now In Scope

All three share one feature: the individual is not running a business the customer is buying from, but is being supplied, matched or engaged to perform work personally. That is the carve-out thread in reverse. Note who is not on the list. The homeowner who hires the cleaner is not made an employer, and nor is a business buying a defined service from another business. The duty lands on whoever supplies, matches or engages the individual.

In Scope or Out: The Common Arrangements

The final guidance contains fourteen examples running in both directions, consolidated below. It stresses they are not exhaustive and that similar arrangements can produce different outcomes on different facts.

The retailer and the manufacturer in that table are out of scope for the same reason: they consume the work themselves rather than passing it onwards to a third party under a contract of their own. That is the hinge on which extended liability turns, and it is not the same hinge that decides whether a direct engagement needs a check.

What About the Contractors Already On Your Books?

The final guidance states: "In relation to employment under a worker's contract, as an individual sub-contractor or in the case of an online matching service providing the details of a service provider to clients or customers, a civil penalty may only be imposed where the employment commenced on or after 1 October 2026." The code of practice in force from 1 October 2026 says the same and adds that this covers liability arising directly under section 15 and under the extended liability provisions in section 15A. For extended liability the guidance puts it slightly differently: a person seeking a statutory excuse must comply with the prescribed requirements where the relevant contractual arrangements were entered into on or after 1 October 2026.

What it does mean

• You are not required to run a retrospective checking exercise across your existing contractor, subcontractor or platform population to avoid a civil penalty under the new categories.
• Someone engaged under a worker's contract since March 2026 who simply keeps working does not, by continuing, create new civil penalty exposure for you.
• The prescribed contractual requirements bite on arrangements entered into from 1 October 2026, so existing supply contracts do not all have to be reopened on day one.

What it does not mean

• It is not an amnesty on employment. If an engagement labelled self-employed is in substance a contract of employment, you have been liable since 29 February 2008 and the commencement date does nothing for you. This is the exposure the substance test is most likely to surface.
• It is not protection from criminal liability. The offence under section 21 of the 2006 Act of employing someone you know, or have reasonable cause to believe, has no right to work is not limited by the 1 October 2026 date. It carries up to five years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
• It does not protect the individual. Working illegally has been an offence since the Immigration Act 2016, and the final guidance confirms it applies to self-employed work and to informal arrangements. Earnings can be seized as the proceeds of crime.
• It does not survive a new engagement. An engagement that ends and restarts, a move to a fresh contract, or a renewal creating a new engagement all begin after 1 October 2026. Contractor populations churn faster than employees, so the protected group shrinks by itself.
• It does not cover follow-up checks. The revised code applies where a repeat check on an existing worker is required on or after 1 October 2026.

The commencement rule buys time on the back book. It buys nothing at all on the question of whether your contractors were ever really contractors.

"Our Agency Handles the Checks"

Delegation is one of the four things the Home Office says it clarified in the 11 September redraft, and the clarification runs against what most businesses assume. The guidance says the employer is responsible for the check, and that this "may be delegated to individuals or members of staff acting on behalf of the employer, including workers, agency workers, or others working under the employer's control, direction and who are accountable to the employer". It then closes the door: "However, the employer will remain liable for a civil penalty in the event the individual is found to be working illegally, and the check has not been carried out as prescribed."

It repeats the point for third party providers: an employer may use a third party for the technical aspects of a check, information gathering or specialist equipment, but "the responsibility for performing the check (in order to obtain a statutory excuse from a civil penalty) will remain with them as the employer". So three propositions hold together. The act of checking can be done by someone else. The statutory excuse belongs to the employer. A defective check by your delegate is a defective check by you. The one place a third party's work carries its own weight is a prescribed check by a registered right to work digital verification service provider, and even there the regulations now require the employer to obtain confirmation that the provider is on the register and operating under the supplementary code. For substitution arrangements the regulations go further and positively prohibit delegating the check to the individual doing the work. Our post on the UK digital ID card and right to work checks covers where the identity side is heading.

Extended Liability: Penalised For Someone Else's Worker

This is the part of the reform with the longest reach and the least attention. Section 15A allows a civil penalty to be imposed on a business that has no contract with the worker and may not know the worker exists.

When it applies, and when it does not

The guidance lists three triggers: where a person is under a contract to provide work or services to a third party and contracts with another employer whose workers carry out part of it; where an online matching service matches a service provider with a client and the provider then contracts with that client; and where an employer engages an individual under a contract permitting substitution. The statute is blunt about the reach. Section 15A(4) treats the upstream party as employing any individual who personally provides the work, even where it has no contractual relationship with them and does not know they are doing the work, and section 15A(5) applies it whether the contract is the first or any other in a chain.

It is not a rule about buying things. The guidance says extended liability "does not apply to every business that purchases work or services from another business nor does it apply to a client, customer or end-user who is purchasing work or services for their own internal operations". The question is simple: are you passing this work onwards to a third party under a contract of your own, or consuming it? If you are passing it on, you are potentially liable for everyone below you.

Why a warranty clause is not enough

Most supplier agreements already say the supplier warrants compliance with immigration law. That clause does not produce a statutory excuse, for two reasons. The requirements are prescribed: article 5B of the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) Order 2007, as inserted by the 2026 Regulations, lists what the contract must require, and a general warranty is not on the list. And paper alone will not carry it. The Home Office says it may consider the structure of the arrangements, the role each party performs, what contracts were in place, "whether those requirements operated effectively in practice", and the evidence available when illegal working was found. It concludes that a person "should not rely on contractual terms alone".

The three prescribed requirements

Three points sit underneath that table. You may rely on a supplier's assurance that checks have been done, provided you have taken reasonable steps to satisfy yourself it is reliable. You may rely on another party's identity verification systems on the same condition. And the requirements are not limited to the first tier, so a two-link chain and a six-link chain are assessed the same way.

There is one piece of comfort. The Home Office says it "will ordinarily seek to identify the person responsible for the relevant contractual arrangements and determine whether that person has established a statutory excuse, rather than treating every party in a contractual chain as liable", and that extended liability does not transfer the checking responsibility. But it then lists the situations where the direct employer cannot be identified, including missing records, multiple intermediaries and substitution that obscures who did the work, and says liability may extend upstream in those cases. Poor records in the middle of a chain are a risk carried at the top of it.

Penalties, and What Is Actually Confirmed

The final guidance lists a civil penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker among the sanctions for employing someone illegally without prescribed checks, alongside criminal conviction with up to five years' imprisonment, business closure and compliance orders, director disqualification, loss of the ability to sponsor migrants, seizure of earnings and licensing consequences in the taxi and alcohol sectors.

The figures come from the code of practice. The revised code of practice, in force from 1 October 2026, keeps the levels introduced by the code of practice of 13 February 2024: £45,000 per worker for a first breach and £60,000 for a repeat breach, before reductions for reporting suspected illegal workers and for active co-operation. The revised code also settles which version applies: checks are assessed against the code in force when the check was made, while the penalty amount is set by the code in force at the date of the breach. Since the new categories attract a civil penalty only for engagements commencing on or after 1 October 2026, and the revised code took effect the same day, a breach in the new categories is priced under the revised code. If a notice has been served, see our guide to challenging an illegal working civil penalty notice and our civil penalty service. For enforcement context, our post on immigration raids and £74 million in fines sets out where the numbers have been running.

Confirmed law, and when each part took effect

The final guide, published on 1 October 2026, keeps every passage of the 11 September draft quoted in this post and the same fourteen examples. It adds a clarification on TUPE, a note on signing up for Home Office updates and an Annex C of questions and answers. Annex C confirms there is no general grace period, that the relevant date for an existing arrangement is when it was entered into, and that there is no blanket exclusion for contractors working through a personal service company.

What to Do Now the Rules Are in Force

This is a scope and liability question rather than a process one, so the list below sits with whoever owns commercial and contractual risk, not only with HR. The onboarding workflow, records and training side is covered on our sister site, WPC HR.

• List every way a person can end up doing work for you without being on your payroll: contractors, subcontractors, agency staff, platform workers, consultants through personal service companies, and anyone arriving through a supplier.
• For each type answer two separate questions. Is this a direct engagement now inside the Scheme? And am I passing this work onwards to a third party, which raises extended liability?
• Find every contract permitting substitution. These carry their own prescribed requirements and are the arrangements most likely to be operating differently from the paperwork.
• Reissue supplier and subcontractor templates so new contracts from 1 October 2026 carry the five prescribed terms rather than a warranty.
• Decide who owns the audit right once you have one. An unexercised audit right is evidence of a clause, not of a system.
• Check identity verification at the point of work, not only at onboarding. Once per shift or 24-hour period is the standard the guidance suggests for higher-risk models.

For a structured starting point, our free HR Compliance Audit tool shows where your records and processes sit, and our free Right to Work Check tool walks you through the check itself.

How Can WorkPermitCloud Help?

Most of the risk here is not in the check. It is in the classification, and in the contracts sitting above it. We map your engagement types against the Right to Work Scheme as it operates from 1 October 2026, tell you which arrangements are in scope and which fall inside the independent business carve-out, and give you a documented position you can rely on if the Home Office asks. Our Right to Work Check service covers the assessment and the checks themselves, across contractor, agency and platform populations.

Where a supply chain is involved we draft the prescribed contractual terms, build the audit and assurance process behind them, and help you evidence that the arrangements work in practice and not only on paper. If a civil penalty notice has already been served, our civil penalty service handles objections and appeals, and our immigration compliance service covers the wider employer and sponsor duties that sit alongside right to work.

Conclusion

The question in the title has a real answer, and it is not "yes". A self-employed contractor who runs their own business and contracts directly with you to supply a service does not need a right to work check, and the Home Office says so in both the final guidance and the code of practice. What changed on 1 October 2026 is that the label stopped doing the work.

Two things follow. The commencement carve-out protects engagements that began before 1 October 2026 from a civil penalty under the new categories, and protects nothing else. And extended liability puts a business that never met the worker on the hook unless it has the prescribed contractual terms, working substitution controls and identity verification that confirms the person on site is the person who was checked. The Act, the regulations, the codes and the final Employer's Guide are all now in force, and there is no grace period.

Glossary