Evaluation of the compliant environment: interim report

Question 1

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

The compliant environment

In common with other comparable countries, the UK has in place a framework of laws and processes that regulate access to work, benefits, and services in the UK referred to as the compliant environment.

This framework ensures that only those who hold lawful status, giving them the right to access work, benefits or services, can do so. The Home Office holds overall responsibility for the compliant environment framework although other government departments (OGDs) and third parties often administer the measures.

The compliant environment comprises 6 areas:

work to ensure only those legally entitled to work in the UK can access employment; this includes checks on the use of alcohol and taxi licences (Right to Work)
housing (Right to Rent) to prevent those without permission to stay from accessing the private rental sector (England only)
public funds to prevent those who are ineligible from accessing mainstream support and benefits, including social housing and homeless assistance (benefits)
health to charge upfront for non-urgent healthcare, recovering costs for emergency treatment and refusing immigration applications where NHS debt is outstanding
banking to prevent people deemed as disqualified due to lack of lawful status from accessing current accounts
driving to restrict access to UK driving licences from people deemed as disqualified due to lack of lawful status

Evaluation of the compliant environment

The Windrush Lessons Learned Review (Williams, 2020) found that the Home Office failed to properly evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the compliant environment measures. The Home Office therefore committed to a long-term evaluation to ensure its rules and its protections are working effectively (Home Office, 2020a). This is an ongoing commitment to ensure the Home Office can understand the impacts of its activities.

In February 2023, the Home Office published a report setting out its initial evaluation strategy for the compliant environment (Home Office, 2023a). This report is a follow-up focusing on the gaps highlighted by the initial report and it charts progress across a range of activities related to compliance and enforcement, as well as noting changes over time. The report focuses on the period between 2021 to 2023.

Understanding compliance

In the public and private sectors, third parties often conduct eligibility checks in the compliant environment. Their awareness and understanding of the measures are therefore important for effective implementation of the measures.

Third party checks: Right to Rent and Right to Work scheme

The Right to Rent measure only applies to the private rental sector in England, which comprises 19% of English households (4.4 million). Survey data shows high compliance with the measure; 78% of landlords had carried out checks on their most recent lettings (MHCLG, 2024).

There were 1.4 million private businesses with employees in 2023 (DBT, 2023a) which may at some point conduct a Right to Work check (Home Office, 2025a). Research shows that 89% of businesses knew they have the responsibility to carry out checks and almost all (96%) know that holding a UK or Irish passport proves right to work (Source: Employer awareness of right to work checks, Home Office, 2025c).

While compliance is high, one-property landlords and smaller businesses may struggle more to understand their obligations, while the use of intermediaries can blur responsibilities, introducing risks from accidental non-compliance. Risks may also be higher in more informal arrangements or where there are no contracts.

While working illegally when self-employed is an offence, Right to Work does not apply to businesses employing self-employed contractors. However, while checks are not necessary, research has shown that many businesses still chose to conduct checks on self-employed contractors for reputational or security reasons. However, with fewer enforcement powers in place, the use of self-employed contractors can present risks. particularly where job roles are low paid and low skilled.

As the immigration system becomes digitalised, processes for checking eligibility may simplify, but may also impact on new challenges as businesses and landlords learn how to navigate digital

For measures outside of Right to Work and Right to Rent, the Home Office engages in proactive data sharing with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) and deposit-taking banks and building societies (firms). This promotes compliance at the point of access to services, as well as ensuring continued compliance over time as migrants’ status may change. Since restarting data sharing in September 2021 post-COVID-19, the Home Office has shared the details of over 110,000 individuals deemed to be irregular, leading to over 14,000 individuals being identified as not having the right immigration status to access services, with spending departments taking the final decision on provision and revocation. This data shows that checks appear to be effective, as low numbers of irregular migrants known to the Home Office are being identified as currently accessing services for which they are ineligible.

Enforcement

The Home Office carries out a range of enforcement activities specifically targeting those who have been identified as non-compliant. The availability of data varies across the measures with some measures relying on a mix of sources, such as intelligence, and others mainly on data sharing. Data availability means that those known to the Home Office, such as visa nationals or failed asylum seekers, are more likely to be in scope of enforcement.

Illegal working covers irregular migrants as well as those lawfully in the UK with no Right to Work or restrictions related to working. Visits to employers suspected of non-compliance are based on available intelligence but also reflect these sector differences with most visits taking place in restaurants (39%), retail (25%) and beauty parlours (11%) in 2023. Overall, Indian nationals were the most common nationality arrested following illegal working visits with 60% of arrests in 2023 related to overstaying or working in breach. Nationalities arrested reflect broader trends in migration to the UK.

Civil penalties: Right to Work and Right to Rent

Civil penalties can be issued to employers and landlords who did not conduct the appropriate checks and subsequently employed or rented to people without the right to be in the UK. Civil penalties are a key enforcement tool against those facilitating continued irregular presence and can also act as a deterrent for landlords and employers to ensure checks are conducted. Research with businesses showed that most were aware that there were consequences to employing workers illegally, and over 60% had heard of civil penalties. Micro businesses tended to be less aware, while those employing non-British workers were much more aware.

In 2023, 1,610 penalties related to illegal working and 155 civil penalties relating to illegal renting were issued. The lower number of penalties issued to landlords reflects the difficulty in establishing responsibilities relating to a tenancy or a sub-let, and the availability of resources to enforce and how they are deployed.

Enforcement against a hidden population adds challenges with issues such as a lack of visibility of workers making it difficult to obtain the right intelligence lead. In addition, lack of employer liability and difficulties in proving clearly that someone is working illegally for a specific business, or renting from a landlord can sometimes also make issuing civil penalties more difficult.

The banking measure

The banking measure requires firms to refuse or close current accounts of those who the Home Office has deemed to not have the right to remain in the UK, included in the department’s Disqualified Persons List (DPL).

Since the measure re-started in April 2023, with data returned from 31 banks, 8,000 individuals have had their current accounts closed while a further 1,044 individuals have been referred for further investigations.

Around 60% were under 40 years old, with 46% of individuals from the Indian subcontinent and demographics similar to other data sharing measures. Most accounts contained £100 or less.

The banking measure relates to current accounts; however, there are alternatives to traditional banking spanning from cash-in-hand to informal networks or complex digital disruptive products. These alternatives to traditional banking are likely to open gaps in the Home Office’s enforcement activity in banking.

The driving measure

The Immigration Act 2014 reinforced the power of DVLA, and DVA in Northern Ireland, to deny new UK driving licences to irregular migrants and introduced the power to revoke UK driving licenses held by irregular migrants. It is an offence to retain a driving licence which has been revoked.

The Home Office shares data monthly with DVLA and DVA that is matched against their records of licence holders. Since data sharing began in 2014, nearly 40,000 driving licences have been revoked because the licence holder lacked lawful status to be in the UK - most of these revocations happened pre 2018 when there was a larger number of older cases. Those most impacted are men from the Indian subcontinent, in particular Pakistanis, which has been the case since 2014. This measure is mostly likely to impact those needing a vehicle for work.

The health measure

The NHS is a residency-based system. This means that people who do not live in the UK on a lawful or settled basis must contribute to the cost of their care by paying a health surcharge when they apply for a visa to stay or live temporarily (for more than 6 months) in the UK. Those who have overstayed their visa or entered the UK irregularly must pay for the cost of their secondary care. Primary care such as GPs and Accident and Emergency is free of charge.

If a migrant is liable to pay for treatment but payment is not forthcoming, the person can incur a debt. The existence of NHS debt can be taken into account in immigration decisions, although it is not a mandatory ground for refusal. Since 2016, where there is an outstanding debt of over £500, non-clinical data can be shared with the Home Office on NHS debtors.

Data comes from across Trusts but not all report. A snapshot of new debts between July and December 2023 has been analysed to understand demographics, noting that 59% were women and the most common nationality was Indian. NHS debtors tend to be older than those impacted in other measures, which is likely to reflect health care need overall. Data includes visitors as well as irregular migrants.

Outcomes and impacts

The impact of the compliant environment measures varies by the individual affected, according to their immigration status and their use of services. In addition, a migrant’s choices, opportunities and interest in remaining in the UK will also influence outcomes.

These differences are reflected in the enforcement activities which tend to impact young men the most. Those most impacted generally come from countries where visas are required to enter the UK. These countries usually make up a high proportion of entrants in the UK, and hence their presence in enforcement data may in part be related to volumes present in the UK and not to those nationalities having a higher propensity to overstay.

Overall, individuals from the Indian subcontinent were more likely to be present in the known irregular population data share, along with Nigerians, and hence more likely than other nationalities to be impacted. This was similar to findings from analysis of data shares between 2014 and 2018.

Legal status can vary over time and this report uses longitudinal outcomes analysis to better understand this by following individuals who were sanctioned by the Home Office. The analysis shows fluctuations between status, with it being relatively common for individuals to move in and out of irregularity. Small proportions of individuals in the analysis have left the UK. It is difficult to ascertain the exact role Home Office activity may have played in the migrants’ decision making but the analysis appears to indicate that timings of the intervention, such as sanctions, along with perceived options for each individual to regularise can play a part in behaviour change.

Safeguards

The Home Office runs a range of workstreams to identify and safeguard vulnerable individuals. This report focuses on those most related to accessing work, benefits and services.

The safety valve mechanism: A referral mechanism to access expert internal support on complex cases: launched in late 2018, it has seen over 1,300 referrals.

Triple lock mechanisms: Quality processes for data sharing with OGDs. Stringent requirements mean that fewer records have been shared since 2021.

Routes to Redress: a service set up to address individuals who perceive they have been wrongly impacted by the compliant environment. Since 2021, there have been almost 2,000 cases recorded relating to a variety of issues, including asking for proof of immigration status or enquiring about specific processes, such as view and prove. In total 86 cases have related to the compliant environment with 6 out of 10 being upheld. 14 of those cases related to data sharing with all but one upheld.

Other safeguards: The banking measure helpline has seen over 130 individuals contact the Home Office, with 51 complaints upheld. Suspected cases of modern slavery can be referred to the National Referral Mechanism, with a third of all referrals coming from Immigration Enforcement (IE) in 2023 (2,757).

While the measures all operate differently, from the data available, the measures appear effective in their primary purpose of ensuring that only those with rights can access work, benefits and services. Equally, enforcement activities target those known to reside irregularly in the UK in a way that is proportionate to the overall migration trends and what is known about irregular migrants. However, where service access is not attempted, or where migrants are part of the hidden economy, the reach of the compliant environment is less certain.

Question 2

1.  Background and introduction

Accepted Answer

In common with other comparable countries, the UK has in place a framework of laws, policies and processes that regulate access to work, benefits, and services in the UK, referred to as the compliant environment.

1.1 The compliant environment

The compliant environment ensures fairness for those abiding by the rules and safeguards the services funded by the taxpayer. The Government takes a holistic approach to immigration control ensuring effective in-country checks as well as border checks are in place. The Home Office holds overall responsibility for the compliant environment framework; however, other government departments and third parties also directly administer the measures.

The compliant environment comprises 6 areas, as defined in the Comprehensive Improvement Plan and further clarified as per the Overarching Equality Impact Assessment as set out below:

work to ensure only those legally entitled to work in the UK can access employment; this includes checks on the use of alcohol and taxi licences (Right to Work)
housing to prevent those without permission from accessing the private rental sector (England only) (Right to Rent)
public funds to prevent those who are ineligible from accessing mainstream support and benefits, including social housing and homeless assistance (benefits)
health to charge upfront for non-urgent healthcare, recovering costs for emergency treatment and refusing immigration applications where NHS debt is outstanding
banking to prevent people deemed as disqualified due to lack of lawful status from accessing current accounts (banking)
driving to restrict access to UK driving licences from people deemed as disqualified due to lack of lawful status (driving)

The compliant environment has multiple aims, including supporting wider government frameworks to enable the legitimate movement of people and goods to support economic prosperity. Furthermore, as set out in the Home Office response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, the compliant environment aims to:

deter and prevent immigration offending, acting as a deterrent for those considering coming to, or remaining in, the UK unlawfully
secure compliance with and help to enforce UK immigration laws
protect UK taxpayer funded services
protect vulnerable migrants from the risk of exploitation by unscrupulous employers and landlords (Home Office, 2020a)

The compliant environment framework is designed to:

distinguish between those who are present in the UK with lawful status and those who are present irregularly
ensure where an individual holds lawful status that includes the right to access work, benefits, or services they can do so

The measures are either: reactive: eligibility checks conducted because of a life event (for example, applying for a new job); or proactive: the Home Office shares data on those without legal immigration status with a third party. Eligibility checks aim to encourage compliance and deter unlawful access.

In some areas, such as employment and private rented housing, everyone is subject to checks, including British and Irish citizens. Everyone must present evidence of their lawful status to allow them access to work or private rented accommodation. Failure to conduct checks correctly can result in penalties for landlords and employers if they are found to have rented out to or employed irregular migrants. Within the private rented sector, there are safeguards in place to enable access for those without lawful status if certain criteria are met (See ‘Considering who should be granted permission to rent’ in Right to rent: landlords penalties; Home Office, 2020b for permission to rent criteria).

In other areas, such as banking and driving, while a range of checks are conducted on all, the focus of the immigration measures relate to restrictions imposed on individuals who are believed to be present in the UK irregularly and deemed ineligible.

Some compliant environment measures also distinguish between temporary and permanent migrants in the UK. For instance, public funds restrictions are applied to most temporary migrants and to those who do not have ‘lawful status’. Similarly, restrictions on access to free secondary health care are applied to those temporary migrants who have not paid the Immigration Health Surcharge (or benefit from a relevant exemption), such as short-term visitors and those present irregularly.

This means the experiences of individuals who are impacted by the compliant environment measures vary, including the cumulative impacts which will depend on each individual’s behaviour and circumstances.

1.2 Windrush Lessons Learned Review and beyond

1.2.1 Windrush lessons learned

The Windrush Lessons Learned Review (Williams, 2020) found that the Home Office failed to monitor, or properly evaluate, the effectiveness and impact of the compliant environment measures and whether they achieved the policy aims. It recommended the Home Secretary commission officials to undertake a full review and evaluation of the compliant environment policy and measures - individually and cumulatively - Recommendation 7 in a set of 30 recommendations for the department to implement.

In response to this recommendation, the Home Office committed to a long-term evaluation of how the compliant environment’s measures operate - individually and cumulatively - to ensure their rules and protections work effectively (Home Office, 2020a).

As set out in the response- the Comprehensive Improvement Plan - the compliant environment is complex and various elements of the evaluation will be delivered at different points in time. In February 2023, the Home Office published a report setting out its initial evaluation strategy for the compliant environment (Home Office, 2023a), alongside a review of the external evidence (Home Office, 2023c). This report follows on from that initial evaluation strategy publication and forms part of the broader ongoing programme to review the compliant environment measures.

1.2.2 Evidence as a core driver in policy making and operational effectiveness

In January 2023, the then Home Secretary provided an update on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review Recommendations to Parliament (Home Office, 2023d), reiterating the department’s commitment to draw on the lessons learned. Recommendation 7 is an ongoing commitment to ensure policy and operational activity in the Home Office integrates evidence around efficiency and impact, and that processes are in place to understand and address any potential unintended consequences.

1.3 Recent changes relevant to the compliant environment

The measures regulating access to work, benefits and services continue to evolve to meet changing requirements and to adapt to new information or challenges. Since the last evaluation report, the Home Office has increased the value of civil penalties and further rolled out digital status.

1.3.1 Increase in civil penalties

Civil penalties can be applied where employers are found to have employed illegal workers or when landlords (including letting agents) have rented out private accommodation to individuals not entitled to it (England only). Where this has happened and the employer or landlord cannot prove that they have conducted the necessary checks to prevent this, they can be issued a civil penalty.

The values for these civil penalties remained the same from 2014 until the suggested change in 2024. In August 2023, the Home Office announced increases in civil penalties which came into force on 13 February 2024 (Home Office and others, 2023). The increases aim to encourage compliance with the Right to Work and Right to Rent schemes by making non-compliance far more expensive, as well as ensuring that people who do not comply with regulations are dealt with in a more robust manner. Table 1 outlines the values for first and repeat breaches under the former and current civil penalty regimes.

Table 1: Changes to the civil penalty regime (working and renting)

Population	Employers	Landlords
First breach values
Civil penalties 2014 to 2023	£15,000 (per worker)	£80 (per lodger) £1,000 (per occupier)
Civil penalties February 2024 onwards	£45,000 (per worker)	£5,000 (per lodger) £10,000 (per occupier)
Repeat breach values (within 3 years)
Civil penalties 2014 to 2023	£20,000 (per worker)	£500 (per lodger) £3,000 (per occupier)
Civil penalties February 2024 onwards	£60,000 (per worker)	£5,000 (per lodger) £10,000 (per occupier)

Source: Home Office, IE and Jenrick R (2023)

Table 1 shows that civil penalty values have tripled related to Right to Work, while the increase in Right to Rent is even greater, although from a much lower starting point.

More details on civil penalties increases can be found in the Equalities Impact Assessment (UKVI, 2023) and in the published Economic Note (Home Office, 2023e) which also sets out the Home Office’s commitment to assess the impact of the increase on those receiving penalties.

1.4 Digital by default

The Home Office is moving towards a digital immigration system, with physical and paper-based products being replaced by online and digital services. Some immigration routes are already wholly digital, such as the EU settlement scheme and the Hong Kong British Nationals (Overseas) route.

E-visas, online records of a person’s immigration status and the conditions of their permission to enter or stay in the UK, are now commonplace across many routes and the roll out is continuous. This means that in-country checks conducted by third parties, such as employers or landlords, are also changing. Since 2019, employers can conduct digital eligibility checks (view and prove) on those with digital status, with the same service being introduced for landlords in late 2020.

Digitalisation of access to work, benefits and services means those with British and Irish passports have had digital options for Right to Work and Right to Rent checks since April 2022. Landlords and employers can choose to use an Identity Document Service Provider (IDSP) to check the identity documents of prospective British and Irish citizen tenants and employees (DSIT and DCMS, 2022).

Building on the lessons learned following the experience of the Windrush scandal, there is support available for more vulnerable individuals to support the transition to digital status (Home Office and UKVI, 2022) including a Resolution Centre for technical issues; and working with OGDs and other stakeholders to identify and reach vulnerable people who are less digitally confident.

1.5 Evaluation of the compliant environment

1.5.1 Overview

In February 2023, the Home Office published a long-term plan to evaluate the compliant environment measures tailored to address the different complexities of each (Home Office, 2023a). Overall, the evaluation aims to:

assess the effectiveness and efficiency of how the compliant environment measures are implemented
understand the impact of each measure and the cumulative impact of the overall framework
develop a monitoring strategy to assess ongoing performance and inform policy development

As the measures operate in different ways and impacts can vary, the evaluation includes 4 workstrands:

evaluating each of the 6 individual measures
monitoring the safeguards
establishing an ongoing monitoring strategy
undertaking cross-cutting assessments, drawing on learnings from individual measures and wider research.

The evaluation is both a process and impact evaluation and is undertaken internally, drawing on external research

1.5.2 Building on the initial evaluation strategy

As set out in the published evaluation strategy (Home Office, 2023a), each of the 6 measures is different. This means that each assessment’s scope will be different, informed by:

the number of individuals impacted by each measure
the potential impact of the measure on an individual’s life
the significance of any evidence gap.

Work and housing, in particular, are key to living in the UK. Limiting access to these is likely to have the greatest impact on people who seek to remain in the UK without legal permission to do so.

Eligibility checks are managed by a wide range of employers and landlords who will have a varying understanding of and interest in the measures. In some cases, these third parties may deliberately not comply with them; consequently, the Home Office has the largest number of enforcement activities in place for these 2 measures, especially Right to Work.

The Right to Work scheme is also particularly complex as limits can apply to those living irregularly in the UK and working, as well as those residing legally but without the requisite permission to work or with restrictions attached to the permission to work, such as the number of hours worked.

This means that understanding employers’ compliance and implementation of the scheme is key to understand the effectiveness of the measure. Home Office (2023a) highlighted employers’ understanding of the measure and changing employment structures and practices as gaps. This latest report outlines progress against filling those gaps and implications for the measures going forward. This includes drawing on research with businesses commissioned to better understand their understanding of the Right to Work scheme.

As with the Right to Work scheme, the Right to Rent scheme includes a variety of enforcement activities and checks by third parties (landlords and letting agents). To date, the Home Office has conducted 2 evaluations into the scheme to explore external stakeholder concerns raised around unintended consequences. This report draws on those findings to better understand overall compliance along with existing long-running government surveys to landlords, such as the English Private Landlord Survey (MHCLG, 2024). Further gaps are most likely to relate to specific areas such as deliberately non-compliant landlords or employer facilitated accommodation which need further exploration.

In relation to benefits, this work has continued to primarily focus on data sharing to enable spending departments to evaluate any decisions on benefits. Access to benefits, and to healthcare, depends on an individual’s needs relating to state support or medical care. As such, these measures will not be engaged with by all. OGDs and NHS trusts manage eligibility checks. Residency requirements as well as immigration status may play a part of the overarching eligibility criteria for each fund or healthcare, but decision-making rest with those departments. This also means that data on final outcomes is not necessarily available to the Home Office.

In addition, as the healthcare overseas visitors charging system can result in debt for visitors, as well as irregular migrants, it is especially challenging to assess. This report, as in the previous report, briefly sets out what is known about NHS debtors who are not ordinarily resident in the UK, noting that not all debts will be reported by NHS Trusts to the Home Office.

Similarly, this report continues to monitor driving licence revocations and, for the first time, adds the assessment of bank account closures to the analysis. Proactive data sharing is key to both these measures, giving the Home Office a good overview of the outcomes and developing an understanding of who is impacted in terms of demographics. However, it cannot account for the deterrent effect achieved via the measures and the number of individuals not attempting to access services they are not eligible for, or deliberately attempting to avoid detection by staying in the informal economy.

A key undertaking of the initial evaluation strategy was to continue to assess proactive data sharing with third parties to understand volume and demographics of those impacted as well as outcomes over time. This report looks at how immigration status can change by tracking individuals’ outcomes over time. Where possible, it looks to explore timelines between interventions and actions taken by affected irregular migrants to regularise their stay or leave the UK. Where possible the report compares the outcomes of proactive OGD data sharing pre-2018 with the outcomes since the measures restarted in 2021.

Given that data on the measures varies, this report focuses substantially on irregular migrants known to the Home Office, with further work needed to explore the hidden population.

In terms of unintended consequences, this work builds on the commitment in the initial evaluation strategy to assess safeguards on an ongoing basis to explore areas such as data quality and volume and reasons for any errors.

This is an interim report outlining progress in relation to the gaps highlighted in the evaluation strategy. It also outlines further work areas since the compliant environment measures continue to evolve. This further work ensures that the Home Office can continue to assess the effectiveness and impact of the compliant environment measures in line with its commitment to its response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review.

All measures have a dual compliance and enforcement aspect, and new initiatives may be added on to the 4 broad work strands of the evaluation.

1.5.3 Report structure

The report assesses the measures in 2 main ways: it looks at the role of compliance in ensuring effective implementation of the compliant environment measures and highlights some of the key factors that affect compliance with immigration law among third parties as well as migrants.

The report also looks at enforcement activity, including sanctions and the impact on those who have been sanctioned, in terms of demographic makeup and longer-term outcomes. Finally, the report identifies new developments and some remaining gaps in the evidence which will be assessed in future outputs.

Previous reports were primarily looking at the period 2014 to 2018 and establishing evidence gaps (Home Office, 2023a). Following the Windrush scandal, proactive data sharing was restricted and subsequently paused during COVID-19, fully resuming in September 2021. Sufficient time has now passed for meaningful assessment of the impact of these measures to be conducted; therefore, this report mainly relates to the period 2021 to 2023 with comparisons to previous years and analysis conducted on data from 2014 to 2018 to add additional insight.

Question 3

2.  Understanding compliance

Accepted Answer

To ensure compliance, it is essential that migrants and the third parties managing access to work, benefits and services understand the rules. Understanding compliance is especially important for implementing Right to Rent and Right to Work which rely on employers from all business sectors in the UK and landlords of all portfolio sizes (England) to check whether prospective employees or tenants have the right status.

Compliance will vary based on factors such as knowledge of legislation and risk appetite. This will in turn result in different behaviours, ranging from high levels of compliance, deliberate non-compliance and selective non-compliance, to inadvertent non-compliance and those who are unaware of their obligations.

This section details Home Office activity related to compliance along with third-party activity. It also explores some known compliance gaps such as self-employment and then highlights new developments such as the digitalisation of the immigration system. The Home Office works with OGDs, employers, landlords, banks, and the NHS to implement the compliant environment.

2.1 Third-party checks: Right to Rent and Right to Work

This section explores the understanding of the rules related to the Right to Rent and Right to Work schemes among landlords and businesses.

2.1.1 Right to Rent scheme

The Right to Rent scheme is only in place in England, where there are 4.4 million private rented households, 19% of all households (MHCLG, 2024). The Home Office has conducted studies looking at the operation of this measure, most recently the Right to Rent evaluation published in February 2023 (Home Office, 2023f). This research showed that awareness of Right to Rent has increased over time.

An increase in awareness is to be expected as the remit of the scheme has increased incrementally. New tenancies are generated as longer lets end (Right to Rent checks do not apply for tenancies pre-December 2016^{[footnote 1]}) and people are checked when applying for new tenancies. This also affects the numbers who have carried out checks. In total, 78% of landlords had carried out a Right to Rent check on their most recent letting (either themselves or via agents) according to the 2021 English Private Landlord survey. Other legal obligations may apply more broadly - 95% of landlords reported having registered for a tenancy deposit scheme and 90% provided prospective tenants with an Energy Performance Certificate.

Landlords with larger portfolios were more likely to have carried out Right to Rent checks (87%) compared to single property landlords (72%). In general, landlords renting out more properties were more likely to say they complied with legal obligations overall. Confidence varied depending on document type, 83% felt confident in checking UK passports, while only 39% felt confident about ID cards (Home Office, 2023f).

Many landlords only checked an applicant’s Right to Rent as one of the final tasks before the tenancy was agreed and often relied on a variety of services (such as agencies and referencing services) to carry out the checks.

Data from the English Private Landlord Survey also explored landlord preferences in letting properties. They found some evidence of landlords being selective, and unwilling to let to non-UK passport holders, with 20% of landlords reporting that they were unwilling to do this. However, some landlords were unwilling to let to some other groups:

84% of landlords were unwilling to let to tenants with a history of rent arrears
48% of landlords were unwilling to let to students
45% were unwilling to rent to those with pets
44% of landlords were unwilling to let to tenants on housing support or Universal Credit, or those requiring property adaptations

These findings are in line with the Home Office’s Right to Rent evaluation which also highlighted that landlords have preferences in relation to tenants overall, with their ability to pay weighing highest in their decision-making. The Home Office research explored whether there was any link between the scheme and discrimination and found that the measure did not lead to discriminatory behaviour.

Overall compliance with the Right to Rent scheme is high, although landlords with smaller property portfolios tend to be less aware. This may open up some opportunities to increase awareness more among certain groups. As reflected here, existing research has focused on landlords and any further work could explore other areas related to rentals, such as intermediaries including but not limited to letting agents and landlords with lodgers.

2.1.2 Right to Work scheme

There were 1.4 million private businesses with employees in 2023 (DBT, 2023a) which may at some point conduct a Right to Work check. Large businesses^{[footnote 2]} employ 39% of workers in the UK private business sector despite making up a relatively small proportion of the business population (8,000) while small businesses account for 48% of employment (DBT, 2023a).

The sectors with most jobs were human health and social work activities (13%); wholesale and retail (13%), professional scientific and technical activities (9%) and administrative and support service activities (9%) (See Office for National Statistics’ JOBS02: Workforce jobs by industry, as accessed in December 2023).

The makeup of payrolled employment has changed in recent times, increasing from 31.7 million to 32 million. This has included a 1% decrease in the UK nationals being employed, while EU nationals have decreased by 3% and non-EU nationals have increased by 20%. The increase in employment of non-EU nationals was across all sectors and regions, although London saw the largest regional increase; with health and social care seeing the largest sector increase (Source: HMRC, 2024).

2.1.3 Understanding compliance

Research shows that 89% of employers are aware of the importance of undertaking checks to prevent illegal working. Almost all (96%) knew that holding a UK or Irish passport proved Right to Work (Source: Employer awareness of right to work checks, Home Office, 2025c). Drivers of compliance included preventing illegal working, avoiding penalties and complying with regulations. Most businesses were confident they were conducting checks correctly. As with landlords, large businesses tended to be more aware of the rules in place and have clear Right to Work practices while smaller businesses without dedicated legal and HR teams often struggled more to understand their responsibilities.

However, when exploring the issues in more detail there was some evidence that employers’ knowledge varied substantially. In particular, employers had incorrect knowledge about the role of third parties, which documents were acceptable to prove right to work, and which groups need documents rechecking.

Risk related to becoming non-compliant included lack of awareness of documents required to conduct checks, hiring zero-hours workers and a lower awareness of sanctions.

While 7 in 10 employers thought illegal working in their sector was uncommon (72%), 1 in 5 said it was common (21%).

The nature of the job and the skills required can also impact propensity to comply. There was a tendency to be less concerned around checks for short term and casual work especially when recruitment was informal and relied on personal connections. Businesses were also more relaxed about low skilled work, that is, work that required few or no qualifications. This was reinforced in stakeholder engagement where businesses raised that short-term staff and casual work could be perceived as grey areas for Right to Work checks by businesses and indicated that while some businesses carried out Right to Work checks for all staff, others may not conduct them in these circumstances.

Checks being more stringent in formal settings was supported by the Home Office’s proactive data sharing with HMRC. This shows that most employers who register their employees for the pay-as-you-earn tax system (PAYE) appear compliant with Right to Work legislation, or at least that few individuals without the Right To Work in the UK are registered for PAYE, for example, only 1% of the details shared by the Home Office resulted in action being taken with employers.

While working illegally when self-employed is an offence, the Right to Work scheme does not apply to businesses relying on self-employed contractors, opening up a gap in the measure’s implementation. In particular, risks could occur where liability for hiring an illegal worker is not clear, whether a business is using a self-employed contractor, a HR intermediary to recruit staff, or is part of the platform economy where many roles such as delivery drivers are self-employed.

However, while checks were not necessary, research showed that many businesses still chose to conduct checks on the self-employed for reputational or security reasons. Gaps related to Right to Work checks were most likely to appear in certain circumstances in relation to self-employment, particularly once someone had started work rather than at the recruitment stage:

expecting that the self-employed person is responsible for compliance with legislation especially in sub-contracting (construction, warehousing)
not being in control of who turns up at work (HR recruitment agencies)
limited oversight of drivers’ digital account usage, particularly due to substitution being allowed and hence multi-use of accounts (gig economy businesses)

To support compliance with immigration law, the Home Office works with public and private sector partners such as HMRC, DWP, banks, DVLA and DVA, to proactively share data so that those who wish to access or retain benefits, work, current accounts or a UK driving licence have the right legal status.

As status can change over time and therefore eligibility to access services, it is important for checks to be conducted continuously These compliance checks are conducted by data sharing between the Home Office and its partners. The resulting output is a good indicator of third-party implementation of legislation; for example, if someone does not have lawful status, they would be prevented from accessing a service by third parties upfront and not identified via data sharing.

To support these checks, the Home Office shares details of individuals who do not have a right to stay in the UK. Migrants that are deemed irregular include individuals who have had their visa or asylum applications refused and have exhausted any appeal rights, or those who have received a notice of intended removal.

Regarding OGD services, the data is then matched with data from DVLA, DVA, HMRC and DWP (Data is shared with DWP via HMRC) (For an overview of data sharing between 2014 and 2018, see Home Office, 2023a). The initial matches are reviewed to ensure they are still correct before taking action such as revoking driving licences, advising on status to OGDs managing benefits payments, or issuing civil penalties for non-compliant employers. Until December 2022, some employers received a nudge letter asking them to undertake a Right to Work check on an employee before receiving any civil penalty.

Data sharing with OGDs primarily identifies cases where someone’s right of access has ceased due to a change in status. OGDs will also deny access upfront to those without the right to access to work, benefits, and services but this is done according to each OGD’s own access criteria, and this data is not necessarily available to the Home Office.

Note that data is shared monthly and consists of a mix of new cases and old cases being re-shared every 6 months. Over time that means most cases come from data that has been shared before.

OGD data sharing has been ongoing since 2014 but was restricted in early 2018 after the Windrush scandal, paused during COVID-19 and restarted in September 2021 (This relates to data up and including December 2023, analysed in January 2024). Since then, over 110,000 individuals’ records have been shared with DVLA/DVA and HMRC resulting in 6,462 initial matches with DVLA/DVA and 4,326 driving licence revocations.

Data shared includes information about those who have had their in-country applications refused, those served with a notice of removal, Foreign National Offenders, absconders or asylum seekers with appeal rights exhausted. The size of the data share will fluctuate and relate to the number of individuals deemed irregular at the time when the data was shared. The number is smaller than the number of records shared pre-2018 (see Home Office, 2023a) which related to a longer time period and included more older cases.

In the same period, there were 19,599 initial matches with HMRC payroll records, some of which resulted in civil penalties. In total, in the 28 months from September 2021 to December 2023, 1,581 individuals were identified as potentially not having permission to be in the UK and work and their employers were either sent a letter asking them to check status and/or had a civil penalty considered in relation to the individual (Latest available data at time of reporting).

In terms of benefits, only data matches with DWP are included, with a relatively small number of matches. A total of 498 individuals were identified and referred to DWP’s compliance teams so that DWP can consider whether revoking benefits would be appropriate.

Note that not all matches are expected to lead to a sanction; a match between systems will lead to a more detailed review of the reasons for a match before any further action is taken. Match data has been included to illustrate the process and quality assurances involved in data sharing.

Actions	Driving	Right to Work	Benefits
Data shared	110,380	113,239	113,239 (HMRC and DWP)
Data matched	6,462	19,559	669 (DWP only)
Action taken: revocations, civil penalties, nudge letters or referrals to DWP compliance teams	4,326	1581¹	498
Non-compliance rate²	4%	1%	N/A

Source: Internal Home Office data

Notes:

Comprising 835 nudge letters and 746 civil penalty referrals.
This is for illustrative purposes and represents the proportion of individuals who saw action taken versus the total number of unique individuals’ data shared.

Overall, around 3% of Home Office shared data (driving and work) resulted in action being taken, suggesting a high level of compliance, and that the checks ensure an effective cross-government approach to enforcing immigration law. The data cannot, however, indicate how many people may have been deterred from engaging in non-compliant activities due to the checks, or support understanding of potential impacts on compliance if checks were absent.

Proactive data sharing is based on available records in the Home Office and reflects the volume of applications logged with the department, with less data available regarding non-visa nationals at present. This means that nationalities with a high number of visa applications granted^{[footnote 3]}, for example, are likely to also have high numbers of individuals who are staying irregularly in the UK, although it should be noted that the Home Office has more information available on visa nationals which may also impact activities. Table 3 shows the most common nationalities whose data was shared since the 2021 re-start. The data aligns to a large extent with the volume of visa applications and enforcement activities.

Nationality	Counts of individuals	% of share
Indian	18,838	17%
Albanian	11,653	10%
Pakistani	11,007	10%
Bangladeshi	11,006	10%
Nigerian	7,258	6%

Source: Internal Home Office data

The data share was 73% male, 22% female and 5% not known. The most common age range was 30 to 39 (37%) which implies that these are often individuals of working age and potentially relatively established in their working lives.

Data sharing with banks is similar, although here the Home Office shares data via a third-party anti-fraud organisation. The Immigration Act 2014 banking measures require banks and building societies (firms; note that these measures apply to authorised deposit-taking banks and building societies) to check applications for new and existing current accounts against a ‘disqualified persons list’ (UKVI and IE, 2024a) provided by the Home Office. All prospective and existing current account holders, signatories or beneficiaries must be checked against the data. Firms are required to refuse applications to open new current accounts and to close existing accounts. The DPL is updated on a weekly basis.

If an individual with an existing bank account matches against the Home Office list, the bank is required to notify the department who will conduct a secondary check to ensure the individual remains disqualified at the date of notification, as per the legislation. There can, therefore, be a time lag between the bank’s initial match and the Home Office secondary check.

Data sharing with firms restarted in April 2023, and the data available so far includes only the initial 3 financial quarters of data sharing (April to December 2023). On average, approximately 60,000 to 70,000 records of migrants deemed to be irregular are shared weekly for banks to check against.

In total, to December 2023, firms have received a duty to close the accounts of 8,000 individuals (holding a total of 12,777 open accounts), and a further 1,044 individuals have been considered for a Freezing Order by Home Office financial investigators (UKVI and IE, 2024a). In some of these latter cases, action has commenced to confiscate funds under Proceeds of Crime legislation.

The Right to Rent measure does not include any proactive data sharing; instead, landlords found to be non-compliant can be served with a civil penalty (see following chapter on enforcement).

Overall, data sharing shows that third parties are effective at implementing the measures, and only a small proportion of migrants who have accessed work, benefits and services are non-compliant, being found to access services without being eligible.

Third parties will also deny access upfront. This information is not as accessible and it should be noted that decisions to reject an application for benefits, a driving licence or a bank account may not solely be based on immigration status.

2.3 Digitalisation of the immigration system

As digitalisation becomes the default, there is a steady increase in checks undertaken this way among employers (Right to Work) and landlords (Right to Rent). However, it should be noted that the volume of checks, as set out in Table 4, does not relate to the number of individuals checked but to the number of unique views. For example, if the same individual views a profile in 2 separate sessions (for example on 2 separate days), it will be counted as 2 views.

The data below relates to the view and prove service (UKVI, 2025a), which allows those with digital accounts to generate a share code that employers and landlords can use to confirm their status. It shows the increased number of digital checks in recent years, following the low levels during the COVID-19 pandemic.

View and prove can be used by those who have a UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) account. Those who have applied to the EU Settlement scheme do, along with anyone who created one when applying for a visa, created an account to get access to an eVisa or used the UK Immigration ID check app when applying for a visa. Those with biometric residence permits (BRPs) also have to use online checking services (UKVI 2025b). Table 4 tracks the significant increase in volume of checks over the last couple of years, which is likely set to continue as digitalisation is rolled out. The data as it stands only offers a sense of volumes and cannot be used to understand trends or the characteristics of landlords and employers making use of the services.

Table 4: Employer and landlord digital checks (view and prove volumes)

Year	Right to Work	Right to Rent
2020	179,782	Data collection started in Q4 2020
2021	1,579,727	202,973
2022	5,204,927	730,177
2023	7,250,509	994,661

Source: Home Office, 2024a

Business engagement showed that digital checks were generally welcomed by businesses as they provided real-time checks, and the extension of digital checks of British and Irish nationals was also seen as a positive development, although manual checks for this group remain the norm, with 79% of businesses saying they use them (Source: Employer awareness of right to work checks, Home Office, 2025c).

However, for employers who regularly employ migrants, there were opportunities to improve by increasing the information displayed during checks, such as showing the name of the migrant’s sponsor and visa type.

Some raised issues with digital systems such as observed cases of the wrong individual’s details being returned by a digital status check, which in turn could impact on trust in the system.

2.4 Continued improvements to ensure compliance

Where the data is available it is possible to see that eligibility checks are, in the main, working and that unlawful access is prevented as the number of individuals sanctioned via OGD data sharing is low.

In terms of work and rent, there are more unknowns, but data sharing shows that most businesses registering employees on their payroll do not employ illegal workers, and research related to landlords also shows that most are aware of and understand their obligations. Research also shows that the key concern for a landlord is the capacity of the tenant to pay rent, and it is therefore unlikely that most landlords would accept someone with no credit history and/or regular income.

It will be important to continue to raise awareness of the measures and how to comply with them as well as ensuring processes are as simple and easy as possible to encourage compliance. Digitalisation of checks has the potential to strengthen compliance by making it simple and streamlined to conduct checks.

However, rapid societal changes, in particular in the digital realm, will mean that new opportunities and challenges can emerge; for example, the rise in digital banking options, the increase of gig economy/ platform workers and remote management. Another area which has proven challenging is self-employment. While a migrant with no Right to Work in the UK cannot lawfully be self-employed, a business using self-employed workers is not liable for conducting any checks and would not face any sanctions.

It will be key to keep reviewing the measures to understand potential new risks (such as labour exchange platforms and neo banks, which are financial technology firms offering online-specific banking services and commonly making money from transaction fees) and opportunities (such as digitalisation of checks and availability of diverse datasets).

The main gap is likely to be related to those with little access to and interaction with formal structures. So, while the systems are working, it should be noted that irregular migration is often hidden, and non-compliance is likely to be centred in areas where employers and landlords are ignorant of, or less careful about, implementing rules or seek to benefit from exploiting individuals in precarious situations.

It is likely that alternatives, regardless of employment status, centre around jobs that are less attractive, lower paid, less visible, casual, and often do not involve contracts of employment. In these cases, it is possible that the employer plays a role in facilitating non-compliance.

Another gap in knowledge relates to those supported by family or friends, who do not need to access work, benefits and services in the UK.

Question 4

3.  Enforcement activity overview

Accepted Answer

Responsibilities related to enforcement sit predominantly with IE teams in the Home Office, although enforcement action may be undertaken along with other partners such as the police.

The most visible enforcement activities are carried out by the Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) teams who undertake intelligence-led operations at business premises and residential addresses. While ICE teams have a variety of functions, in the context of the compliant environment measures, the report explores activities relating to Right to Work and Right to Rent. Enforcement activity in these areas targets non-compliant employers and landlords, aiming to take action against those exploiting irregular migrants as well as upholding immigration law by taking action against irregular migrants.

This section also covers Home Office work with other agencies to proactively revoke access to work, benefits and services from those who are no longer eligible. This section gives more detail about the demographic characteristics of those impacted by enforcement activities including those whose driving licences, current bank accounts and employment have been affected.

The Home Office has a variety of enforcement activities in relation to non-compliance in this area which particularly focus on targeting employers suspected of employing illegal workers (Right to Work), but also on non-compliant landlords in England (Right to Rent).

Illegal working covers not only irregular migrants but also those in the UK lawfully, but without the requisite right to work or with restrictions related to working. This includes business sector specific visas, weekly working hour limits for students, or restrictions on asylum seekers working while their asylum application is considered. (UKVI, 2024).

Illegal working visits: Home Office enforcement officers conduct illegal working visits across the UK to a variety of businesses. This work is based on available intelligence and spans across sectors. Illegal working visits also give the department a broader overview of risks and trends and involve Home Office officials directly interacting with employers suspected of non-compliance. Illegal working visits also offer the Home Office a better understanding of irregular migrants in the hidden population and can identify migrants that are victims of exploitation.

Figure 1: Number of illegal working visits, 2019 to 2023

Source: Home Office, 2024b

Notes:

That this data is published on an ad-hoc basis.

The number of visits has varied over time with the COVID-19 pandemic, the main reason for lower numbers in 2020 and 2021. In 2023 enforcement activity significantly increased including a ‘day of action’ on illegal working where Home Office Immigration Enforcement officers conducted over 100 illegal working visits in one day (Home Office, 2023g) and a dedicated week of activity on illegal working in the ‘gig economy’^{[footnote 4]} focusing particularly on food delivery drivers (Home Office, 2023h). There are various factors that impact enforcement decisions and subsequently their outcomes, including other tasking and overall staffing limits.

3.1.1 Geographical spread

ICE teams operate across the UK in 2 broad regions: ICE South- London, the South East and East of England; and ICE North- the Midlands, North West and East, Yorkshire and Humber, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (NI. Scotland and NI can be different due to legal differences and operational challenges in NI. The teams across regions vary in size and face different challenges relating to rural/urban make up and different migrant populations, as well as different business sectors operating in their respective regions.

3.1.2 Sectors and risks

Enforcement teams are active across a wide range of economic sectors, although the available intelligence will largely drive which sectors receive the most visits. Many enforcement visits are in the restaurant and take away sector, as well as retail or beauty.

While numbers of visits to particular types of businesses vary over time, overall, restaurants have been the key sector receiving the most visits over time. Figure 2 provides a breakdown of visits conducted in 2023 when 39% were restaurants, 25% retail (food and non-food) and 11% beauty parlours (including nail bars and barber shops). Overall, these sectors accounted for three-quarters of the illegal working visits over this 12-month period.

The notion that illegal working might be more common in some sectors than others was supported in research with businesses where 41% of businesses in construction and 39% of businesses in accommodation and food services agreed that illegal working may happen in their sector (Source: Employer awareness of right to work checks, Home Office, 2025c). This also aligns with IE’s sector approach and is similar to the Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s assessments of sector risks over the years (DBT, 2023b).

Figure 2: Most visited sectors for illegal working in 2023

Source: Internal data sources based on 5,778 visits to businesses or commercial properties

Notes:

In total, 6,512 illegal working visits were conducted in 2023. Illegal working related visits to residential addresses have been excluded from the sector analysis.

Illegal working spans not just irregular migrants but also those in the UK without the requisite Right to Work. This is reflected in arrests by ICE as many of those arrested reside legally in the UK but are working in breach of their visa condition. In 2023, about 60% of arrests related to overstaying or working in breach.

Overall, Indian nationals were the most common nationality arrested following illegal working enforcement visits (Figure 3). This mirrors other activity in this report such as sanctions.

Figure 3: Most common nationalities arrested in illegal working visits

Source: Illegal working arrests in 2023 internal data

Migrant labour tends to be more common in some business sectors than others and concentration in nationalities should also be viewed against the wider diaspora of those nationals in the UK. Furthermore, illegal working visits often have no named offender and officers will, therefore, be unaware of who they will encounter until the visit is in progress.

Teams also build up an understanding of new risks via visits. The digital platform economy is a fast-moving area where there are rapid changes to the type of work performed, as well as the businesses dominating the market. ICE activities such as the weeks of action show that there are clear risks related to illegal working given features like remote management and sharing of online accounts. This also means exploring sectors where self-employment is the norm and where enforcement activities such as civil penalties do not apply.

The Home Office shares data with HMRC to identify any PAYE registered employees that no longer have the right to work in the UK. From the restart of data sharing in September 2021 to December 2022, the Home Office sent out letters to employers asking them to check the status of PAYE-registered employees that, according to the department, did not appear to have lawful status in the UK. Subsequent checks would then take place and those still found to be employing potentially irregular migrants would see a penalty issued. In 2023, the Home Office changed approach, aligning its enforcement activity related to employers by ceasing to send ‘nudge’ letters and instead considering issuing a civil penalty straight away.

In total, data on 113,239 people was shared, with 1,581 individuals the subject of letters to employers or civil penalty referrals. Most of these (74%) were male while the most common nationalities were Indian, Nigerian and Bangladeshi. The demographics of those sanctioned aligned with the makeup of the shared population. This is also in line with data sharing outcomes pre-2018.

3.1.4 Right to rent visits

Enforcement visits related to targeting landlords renting to irregular migrants are embedded in wider enforcement work. This means that a civil penalty may be issued after an ICE officer referral if the rental arrangement can be established from an enforcement visit to someone’s residence. Reasons for residential visits can include a follow-up where workers are arrested, including those found to be self-employed, for example. The measure is only in place in England and relies on establishing responsibilities relating to the tenancy or sub-let. There are also exceptions related to social housing and employer-facilitated accommodation. It can, therefore, be challenging to collect the evidence necessary to issue a civil penalty related to Right to Rent. A strong focus on Right to Rent, coupled with high visits overall, saw civil penalty numbers go up beyond even 2019 levels.

3.1.5 Civil penalties

Enforcement activity will reflect the resources available for that activity, and ICE resource allocated for illegal working visits is a key driver of realised volumes in penalties as data in Figure 4 shows. There has traditionally been a strong emphasis on illegal working rather than illegal renting as reflected in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Number of civil penalties issued between 2019 and 2023

Source: Home Office and UKVI (2024)

Research with a representative sample of businesses showed that most were aware that there were consequences of employing workers illegally, and over 60% had heard of civil penalties. Micro-businesses tended to be less aware of the range of sanctions available, while those hiring agency workers and using zero hours contracts along with employers with non-British national workers tended to be more aware of sanctions and penalties. Most businesses did not, however, have direct experience of a civil penalty or an enforcement visit, which was to be expected (Source: Employer awareness of right to work checks, Home Office, 2025c).

Most civil penalties are generated via targeted illegal working visits, although HMRC data sharing can also result in penalties, and internal Home Office teams and other agencies can also make referrals. Evidence also indicates that non-compliance is not equally distributed but likely to occur more among some businesses and landlords than others, and further work will be undertaken to better understand these differences.

Enforcement against a hidden population adds challenges with issues, such as a lack of visibility of workers, making it difficult to obtain the right intelligence lead. In addition, lack of employer liability and the difficulty experienced in clearly proving that someone is working illegally for a specific business or renting from a landlord can also occasionally make issuing civil penalties more difficult. It should be noted that, for the purpose of the legislation, fines can be issued to landlords and those described in the legislation as ‘Any tenant who sub-lets all or part of their accommodation in an agreement involving the payment of rent to be used as the only or main home of the sub-tenant’ (Home Office and UKVI, 2025a).

3.2 The banking measure

The banking measure requires firms to refuse applications for, or close, current accounts of those who the Home Office has deemed to be disqualified, as they do not have permission to remain in the UK and, hence, are included on the department’s Disqualified Persons List (DPL). While the account refusals came into force in 2014, the account closure measure was only in place for a very limited time prior to the Windrush scandal and no outcomes were identifiable pre-2018. This analysis, therefore, focuses on data collected after the measure restarted in April 2023.

This analysis relates to existing account closures and is based on data returned to the Home Office from 31 banks and building societies from April to December 2023. Individuals were matched against the list of around 77,000 disqualified persons during each quarter. The Home Office reviews initial matches to ensure status has not changed before going back to the banks to confirm that the Duty to Close notice on the account applies or that further investigation is warranted. The Home Office also confirms no action in cases where an initial match is no longer deemed a disqualified person. In terms of refused current account applications, the Home Office can review where banks have matched against disqualified persons to better understand processes, but there is no formal duty to report back refusal, hence data is indicative only and not reported here.

In total, as per Table 5, since the measure restarted 8,000 individuals have been confirmed as disqualified with a Duty to Close notice issued against at least one of their accounts, and 1,044 individuals have been referred for further investigation. Those who have their accounts referred for investigation may also ultimately have their account closed increasing that figure further.

Response	Number of individuals
Confirmed disqualified person: Duty to close account applies	8,000
Confirmed disqualified person: No further action: Referred for investigation	1,044

Source: Internal Home Office data

The measure does not require that all current accounts are closed, rather that the disqualified person can no longer act as an account holder, signatory to or beneficiary of any account. It is possible to reassign interests in a joint account or remove the disqualified person as a signatory or beneficiary without necessarily closing the account. Despite the measure only restarting in Spring 2023, it has impacted a comparatively high number of individuals deemed irregular.

Individuals referred for investigation may have their account frozen. The Home Office only considers applying for a Freezing Order if the level of funds in a person’s combined bank accounts is £1,000 or more (Home Office, 2017).

The department’s investigations may lead to action under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) (HM Government, 2025). This may lead to accounts being frozen and assets forfeited. These investigations take time but, as of August 2024, the courts had granted Freezing Orders for 46 individuals with approximately £1.7 million being frozen. Home Office investigative teams also secured the forfeiture of over £100,000.

In any instance of an application for an account being refused or an account being closed, the bank or building society must provide information to the affected person explaining that the Home Office has advised they are disqualified, how to contact the Home Office, how to secure assistance in leaving the UK or explaining the need to regularise their status (UKVI and IE, 202bb).

3.2.1 Response demographics

The demographic data of the 8,000 individuals who had their accounts issued with a Duty to Close notice shows some notable characteristics.

Around 6 in 10 were under 40 years old, with 46% of individuals from the Indian subcontinent, seen in Figure 5 and Table 6. These characteristics of those who had accounts issued with a Duty to Close notice are broadly similar to those we see in other Home Office data-sharing activity.

Figure 5: Age of individuals who had a Duty to Close notice issued (April to December 2023)

Base: Total number of disqualified individuals: 8,000

Source: Internal Home Office data

Table 6: Most common nationalities of individuals who had a Duty to Close notice issued (April to December 2023)

Nationality	Number and proportion of cases
Indian	1,501 (19%)
Pakistani	1,206 (15%)
Albanian	1,028 (13%)
Bangladeshi	947 (12%)
Nigerian	463 (6%)

Source: Internal Home Office data

Notes:

Percentage calculated from all individuals issued with a Duty to Close notice.

From April to December 2023, 12,777 accounts were issued with a Duty to close notice (impacting 8,000 individuals). Most of the accounts contained relatively small sums, with approximately 70% of accounts containing £100 or less, while a further 1,044 individuals with more funds in their bank accounts were referred for further investigation.

The banking measure relates to current accounts; however, there are alternatives to traditional banking spanning from informal networks to complex digital disruptive products. This includes money service businesses such as remittance services, some digital challenger banks or fintechs (that is, online-only banking services. Some have banking licences and others do not) and cryptocurrency platforms. These services are marketed and used in different ways, and the regulatory oversight also varies. These alternatives to traditional banking are likely to represent gaps in the Home Office’s enforcement activity in banking.

3.3 The driving measure

The Immigration Act 2014 reinforced the power of DVLA, and DVA in Northern Ireland, to deny new UK driving licences to irregular migrants and introduced the power to revoke UK driving licences held by irregular migrants. It is an offence to retain a driving licence which has been revoked.

The Home Office shares data monthly with DVLA and DVA that is matched against DVLA and DVA’s records of licence holders. The Home Office then sends letters out to the individuals identified as holding a driving licence but lacking lawful immigration status, alerting them that their UK driving licence may be revoked. Individuals are provided with the opportunity to submit information to the Home Office if they believe the department’s records related to them are incorrect. The Home Office will also consider any evidence that demonstrates compassionate and compelling circumstances. The Home Office will decide, based on the evidence, whether to take action to revoke the licence or allow the individual to maintain it.

The DVLA and DVA also deny applications for a new driving licence on the grounds of a migrant having no lawful immigration status, but do not record when they deny somebody a driving licence for this reason, meaning there is currently no data available to effectively evaluate whether this element of the measure is effective.

3.3.1 Driving licence revocations

Data sharing started in 2014, was restricted in February 2018 post-Windrush, then paused during COVID-19 and restarted again in September 2021.

Since data sharing began in 2014, nearly 40,000 driving licences have been revoked because the licence holder lacked lawful status to be in the UK (n=39,883).

Between July 2014 and February 2018, 35,556 individuals had their driving licence revoked (Home Office, 2023a) while 4,327 licences were revoked between September 2021 and December 2023. The difference between the 2 time periods is likely related to a more tailored approach to data processes and data handling since 2021, as well as a higher volume of legacy cases identified in the period pre-2018.

The driving measure resulted in a greater number of sanctions, based on data sharing alone, compared to most of the other measures within the wider compliant environment policy group. This does not mean that the driving measure has a greater impact than all other compliant environment measures, simply that significant numbers of individuals deemed to be irregular migrants have been matched in this data share activity.

While initial data sharing would have included older cases, such as individuals with no legal rights prior to 2014 (for details on data sharing pre-Windrush, see Chapter 4 of Home Office (2023a)), it is likely that the revocations now mainly relate to migrants who were previously legally in the UK and have since likely overstayed, rather than those who were issued a driving licence many years ago when there were no specific requirements to evidence their immigration status.

3.3.2 Demographics of those impacted by revocations

The data available allows analysis of individuals who are impacted by a driving licence revocation. Across the entire time period, the migrants impacted were most commonly of Pakistani, Indian, or Bangladeshi nationality (Table 7).

Table 7: Most common nationalities impacted by driving licence revocations (%)

Nationality	July 2014 to February 2018	September 2021 to December 2023
Pakistani	28%	21%
Indian	22%	19%
Bangladeshi	11%	11%

Base: 35,556 during 2014 to 2018 and 4,327 during 2021 to 2023

Source: Internal Home Office data

The data illustrates that migrants from the Indian subcontinent are consistently the most impacted by driving licence revocations. However, it should be noted that the issuing of revocations is based on data available to the Home Office which is matched to DVLA/DVA records, and the data is subject to several caveats, including temporary exclusions.

Analysis further identified that most driving licence revocations were received by migrants living in London, specifically in East and West London, including boroughs such as Newham and Ealing. The location of those who had their licences revoked varied little across the years.

Although migrants from the Indian subcontinent are one of the larger migrant groups in the UK, and to an extent are more present in East and West London boroughs than others, comparing sanction data with Office for National Statistics (ONS) population data is not sufficient to determine whether this pattern is proportionate and there is no data available to understand driving licence applications by nationality either.

3.3.3 Overall outcomes on driving

The data shows a significant number of migrants being impacted by the measures, and that the measures effectively identify individuals who hold a driving licence in the UK without lawful status. The data also suggests they could encourage irregular migrants to regularise their immigration status.

For example, the Home Office sends a warning letter out prior to revoking a licence. Data suggest that the letters generate a high level of correspondence and that, for example, out of 2,437 letters issued in 2022, about 5% (n=132) resulted in a changed decision (based on a new application, an appeal, or the migrant having existing leave) while in 2023 it was 18% (n=191). The increase seen in 2023 is thought to be connected to delays in appeals being registered on Home Office systems.

In addition, a further number of individuals whose driving licences were revoked went on to regularise their status (14% in 2022), while 3% subsequently left the UK; the remainder were deemed to still be in the UK without status and consequently in scope of enforcement activity (1% of cases kept being under review). The proportion of individuals who change status appears to have increased over time; this is discussed in more detail in the section on ‘Impact of the measures’ in this report.

However, there are still opportunities to avoid being impacted by the measure. For example, most migrants who receive a driving licence revocation do not return their licence to the DVLA/DVA, meaning, in theory, revoked licences could be used to access some services. There is also no way to know if migrants continue to drive illegally through data sharing alone. It is also important to remember that by simply not having a driving licence, irregular migrants would avoid being identified through the data share. This means the measure is likely to only impact a small proportion of the whole irregular migrant cohort; however, for those needing to use a vehicle for work, this would have a significant impact.

3.4 The health measure and the Home Office role

The NHS is a residency-based system. This means that people who do not live in the UK on a lawful or settled basis must contribute to the cost of their care by paying a health surcharge when they apply for a visa to stay or live temporarily (for more than 6 months) in the UK (the Immigration Health Surcharge). This allows them to access NHS services without further charges, although some exceptions apply including assisted conception services.

There are exemptions from charge included in the NHS Charging Regulations that ensure some of the most vulnerable people living in the UK without permission do not have to pay, including refugees, asylum seekers, victims of modern slavery and children cared for by local authorities. Over and above this, health services are not withheld from anyone in urgent need because they cannot pay, and primary services such as GPs and Accident and Emergency are free of charge.

Where debt is incurred, the Home Office is notified after it has been outstanding for at least 2 months. The existence of an NHS debt may be taken into account in immigration decisions. However, NHS debt is a discretionary ground for refusal of immigration permission rather than a mandatory ground for refusal.

Since 2016, only debts of over £500 outstanding for at least 2 months are reported to the Home Office (previously over £1000 and 3 months). This ensures the patient has a reasonable time in which to pay the debt or agree a payment plan.

To regulate access to the health care system, the Home Office and the NHS share non-clinical data with each other to help decision-making only. This means that the Home Office shares status information to aid NHS Trusts in eligibility checking and that NHS Trusts share debtor information with the Home Office to support decision-making.

The use of Home Office checking services varies between NHS Trusts, which is to be expected given differences in size and location of Trusts, leading to different checking needs. Volume of checks can also depend on Trust charging practices and individual NHS staff members’ understanding of the charging regulations

3.4.1 NHS debtor demographics

Just as in the initial evaluation strategy, this report has looked at data on debtors- non-ordinary residents who have received treatment from the NHS for which they need to pay but have yet not done so. The amount of debt owed by an individual is solely determined by the NHS treatment they access.

While it is not possible to separate out irregular migrants and visitors’ data, following on from data reported in the initial report (Home Office, 2023a), a snapshot has been used to explore NHS debtor demographics relating to accepted new debt sent to the Home Office from July to December 2023.

During this period, there were 2,750 accepted new debts, owed by 2,479 unique individuals. The median debt (which is used to account for outliers of small numbers of very high or low debt) reported was around £4,000. Debt will relate to those seeking treatment at the time, the type and intensity of treatment provided. In total, 59% were women and the most represented age group was 30 to 39 (29%), in which the most common nationality was Indian (19%). The largest proportion of men were aged 60 and over (32%), of which the most common nationality was also Indian (21%). Overall, 60% of debt related to individuals below the age of 50, while the most common age category of debtors was those aged 60 or over (30%).

Figure 6: Age of debtors, July-December 2023

Base: 2,478. One case excluded due to missing age

Source: Home Office internal data

A total of 126 nationalities are represented in this NHS accepted new debt data, with the most common being Indian (representing 18% of debtors) Nigerian (which represented 12% of debtors) and USA citizens (11%). The most common nationalities were not those with the highest average debt, this instead related to very small numbers of uncommon nationalities and are hence not reported here.

Figure 7: Most common nationalities of debtors, July-December 2023

Base: 2,479

Source: Home Office internal data

The demographics remain the same as data related to pre 2018 published in the previous report on the compliant environment (Home Office, 2023a).

3.4.2 Varied impact on groups from enforcement activity

The availability of data to enforce is key to Home Office activity, but this can vary across measures. Some measures rely exclusively on data-sharing activity and upfront digital service checking (banking and driving) while other measures, such as Right to Work and Right to Rent, include data-sharing and intelligence-led operations. Data availability means that those known to the Home Office, such as visa national overstayers or failed asylum seekers are more likely to be in scope of enforcement activity based on data sharing, while ICE activity goes beyond that to focus on a range of people of potential interest who may include those who the Home Office does not hold a record of (for example, illegal entrants not previously identified).

Aside from enforcers and third-party implementation, a migrant’s choices, opportunities, and interest in remaining in the UK will affect outcomes (de Haas, 2021).

Question 5

4.  The impact of the measures

Accepted Answer

The impact of the compliant environment measures is not designed to be homogenous; it affects individuals differently according to their immigration status and their use of services. This means that enforcement activities also reflect these differences; for example, enforcement tends to impact young men the most, less so for health and benefits. Those most impacted tend to be nationals of countries where visas are required to enter the UK. These countries tend to make up a high proportion of entrants in the UK, and hence their presence in enforcement data may partly be related to volumes present in the UK and not to those nationalities having a higher propensity to overstay.

The compliant environment measures as a whole target irregular migrants known to the Home Office more than other groups, such as clandestine entrants who have not come to the department’s notice.

In terms of impact, this is harder to ascertain, and while outcomes post enforcement can be measured, an individual’s actions are likely to depend on a range of factors including reasons for staying irregularly in the first place, expectations around access, the value of a service to someone if they cannot access it and if any alternatives are available.

This section looks at the short- and longer-term outcomes of those who have had some form of action taken, and what safeguards say about the impact of the compliant environment.

4.1 Irregular migrants impacted by Home Office actions- what are the outcomes?

This section looks in more detail at the individuals sanctioned via data sharing with OGDs and banks, or who are NHS debtors. As seen in the chapter about compliance, the data share only identified a small number of individuals as accessing services when they should not have, hence receiving a sanction with upfront eligibility checks appears to work well. Similarly, the number of NHS debtors is relatively small and may include both visitors and irregular migrants. It has been included for transparency and comparison purposes.

The majority of those impacted by proactive data sharing or those who were NHS debtors were men, in particular in relation to driving and working. In terms of nationality, Indians tended to be the most common nationality across most measures apart from driving (where Pakistani nationals were the most common). Overall, individuals from the Indian subcontinent were commonly impacted by data sharing, along with Nigerians. This was similar to findings from analysing data shares between 2014 and 2018.

Figure 8: Most common nationality impacted by measures: 2021 to 2023

Base: Driving: 4,326; Work: 1,581; Banking: 8,000 (2023 only); Health (last 6 months of 2023 only): 2,479; Benefits: 498

This graph relates to individuals who have received a sanction or revocation as a result of data sharing.

In terms of age, most were aged 30 to 39 years old, making up around 40% of cases across driving, working, and banking. Health was slightly different as the highest category by age was those aged 60 or over (30%), although it should be noted that this is snapshot data.

Figure 9: Distribution of sex for each measure

Base: Driving: 4,326, Work: 1,581, Health: 2,479, Benefits: 498

This graph relates to individuals who have received a sanction or revocation as a result of data sharing. This can include receiving an NHS debt, having a driving licence or benefit revoked or having an employer sent a civil penalty notice or nudge letter

Overall, the demographic makeup (age, sex and nationality) of individuals shared aligns with those sanctioned and there is little disproportionate impact on certain groups aside from the tendency to revoke Pakistani men’s driving licences as mentioned above. NHS debtors were more likely to be female than measures related to proactive data sharing.

4.1.1 Outcomes over time

To understand better the longer-term outcomes of those sanctioned via proactive data sharing this research looks at long-term outcomes of individuals sanctioned before March 2018 as per Figure 10 below.

A snapshot of individuals’ status is taken in May each year to illustrate those individuals’ journeys. The snapshot represents someone’s status at only that particular point in time. The outcomes are grouped into 4 categories as set out in the initial evaluation strategy (Home Office, 2023a).

Regularised: meaning that the individual had gained indefinite leave, had been naturalised as a British citizen, been granted asylum or humanitarian protection, or obtained temporary permission to stay/enter. This includes people with section 3C leave, which ensures a person who makes an in-time application to extend their leave does not become an overstayer and continues to have rights while they are awaiting a decision on that application.

Under review/outstanding application: meaning that the individual had an outstanding application or has challenged a negative casework decision via an available channel, such as an administrative review or appeal.

Of interest: meaning that the individual had no outstanding application, was appeals rights exhausted, in immigration detention or prison, or was in a position where Home Office IE had an interest in considering taking action related to that individual. It is possible that an unknown number of people in this group has left the UK.

Left the UK: meaning that the individual had been identified as having likely left.

To do this, a snapshot date of 23 May 2021, which corresponds to the date the analysis was conducted, was used to illustrate the individual’s journey. The outcome of this journey was grouped into 4 categories. It should be noted that, as these are snapshots, it does not tell us at what point individuals achieved the outcome, or whether it is permanent. This means, for example, that someone who has put an in-time application in one year would be included in the regularised category but if their application is rejected, and they then remain in the UK they are likely to go back to the ‘of interest’ category.

The data over all 3 time points includes 99% of this cohort. Where data is missing at any time point, records have been excluded from the analysis. It can be noted that 78% of people had the same immigration status in May 2021 and May 2022, 82% between May 2022 and May 2023 and 74% at all 3 time points. The initial report on data sharing outlined status in more detail for those who had regularised in 2021, noting that half of those who had received sanctions related to Right to Work and subsequently regularised had done so permanently, while the equivalent for driving was one in ten (Home Office, 2023a).

	Status as of May 2021	Status as of May 2022	Status as of May 2023
Has legal status	40%	57%	45%
Under review	7%	7%	6%
Of IE interest	23%	6%	17%
Outside UK	30%	30%	30%
Other	1%	1%	1%

The longitudinal outcomes analysis shows some fluctuations between status, in particular between those moving in and out of irregularity, while the proportion of those thought to have left the UK remains the same. It should be noted that the measuring of pre-2018 cohort outcomes started in 2021 with the initial evaluation, while the sanctions were applied to this cohort between 2014 and 2018. Snapshots are live data and have been collected since.

Looking at outcomes from those who were sanctioned since data sharing resumed in full in 2021, the timescales are tighter, allowing us to understand behaviours more closely. The analysis below was carried out on the status of those individuals who had received sanctions between September 2021 and December 2022. At the point of sanction, each person would have been of interest to IE. This analysis follows the changing status of these individuals after being sanctioned, with the 5 categories being ‘regularised status’, ‘barrier to removal’, ‘of interest to IE’, ‘outside the UK’ and ‘other’ (which makes up less than 2% of cases).

In terms of driving, the percentage of individuals of interest to IE was 86% in 2022, reducing to 77% in 2023. Again, most movement related to individuals obtaining legal status in this period (from 9% in 2022 to 15% in 2023). Those known to have subsequently left the UK increased from 4% in 2022 to 6% in 2023.

Similarly, individuals who were the subject of a nudge letter to their employer (or a civil penalty referral) had experienced similar changes to driving licence revocations, with 81% in 2022 being of interest reducing to 67% in 2023. Most of the change comes from individuals having regularised (temporary or long term), from 14% to 24% between 2022 and 2023. The proportion of individuals who subsequently left the UK was 3% in 2022 and 5% in 2023. We look to continue the analysis in the future to benefit from a longer time period in assessing outcomes.

This differs greatly from the pre-2018 cohort in Figure 10. Those sanctioned between 2014 and 2018 had left the UK in much higher numbers (30%), while the proportion of those who had regularised varied over time but was around double that of the 2022 cohort. The data sharing restarted during the pandemic, and this may have impacted volume and behaviour too. It should also be noted that the time scales for comparisons pre-2018 and post-2021 are very different and so are the volumes of sanctioned individuals.

Overall, since data sharing re-commenced those sanctioned have tended to remain in scope for enforcement activity. Many factors could have played a part in this, and it should be noted that changes to data sharing and introduction of additional safeguards may have played a part in the makeup of the sanctioned population. This means that it is a more accurate dataset to start with and that changes pre-2018 may, to some extent, reflect data selection criteria.

There are changes over time among the immigration status of those sanctioned through compliant environment measures; however, it is difficult to say what role Home Office activity played in the decisions to regularise or leave the UK. Overall, from the outcomes analysis in Figure 10, we can see that where individuals can legalise their status, they appear willing to do so, while it is less common for those with no legal status to leave the UK as the numbers who are known to have left fluctuate a lot less. This appears to indicate that timings of interventions and options available for each individual play a part in the decision-making.

In terms of cumulative impacts related to data sharing, as observed in Home Office (2023a), these are relatively minor. Since data sharing resumed in full in 2021, 67 individuals were affected by DVLA and HMRC data sharing as well as banking. However, more individuals were sanctioned across 2 measures such as banking and driving (n=945), banking and HMRC (n=212), and driving and HMRC (n=154).

Most of those impacted by multiple sanctions were men, in the age group 30 to 39. Indians were the most common nationality affected by multiple sanctions, around one-fifth across all combinations, although, with banking and driving, Pakistanis were somewhat more affected. This is in line with the broader data-sharing trends. Note that the banking measure has been in place for less time than other data-sharing activity and relates to April to December 2023 only.

This reinforces that service use is varied and having been found to potentially work illegally does not mean someone has a bank account too.

4.2 Safeguards

The Home Office’s work to identify and safeguard vulnerable individuals cuts across the department and takes many different forms. This report looks primarily at safeguards in the context of work related to access to work, benefits, and services.

In particular, it looks at 2 initiatives set up post the Windrush scandal to strengthen processes including a mechanism to support officers’ decision making and a system to prevent or alert the department if the compliant environment measures impacted someone unintended.

To strengthen the processes and data, the Home Office developed various safety mechanisms outlined throughout section 4.2.

4.2.1 Safety valve mechanism (SVM)

The mechanism provides an additional layer of support to decision-makers within IE where they feel that something is not right with the action that the relevant policy and guidance is pointing them towards after all internal support routes have been exhausted. Cases can be referred to a team of experts within the department that can provide assistance on complex issues, including handling and decision-making.

The SVM is open to all teams within Immigration Enforcement. It is one of many internal routes staff can use to raise concerns around cases such as long-term residency. Many concerns will be handled by direct line management teams and hence the number of referrals is not indicative of the Home Office’s overall handling of safeguards. The scheme started in late 2018 and has since seen over 1,300 referrals.

Table 8: Number of referrals to SVM by year

2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
196	278	305	382	218

Source: Internal Home Office data

4.2.2 Triple lock mechanism

In late 2018, the Home Office introduced a triple lock process which aimed to enhance the existing safeguards in place for pro-active data sharing. These controls include restriction of data sharing only to data that is relevant to the agreed activity; a quality check sampling exercise; and a manual check on the matched records prior to action being taken by partners (besides bank account refusals). This provides a final opportunity to ensure the individual’s status has not changed since the data was shared and ensures the process identifies any issues with the quality of the data.

In addition, the Home Office can also put temporary safeguards in place to further strengthen the system, such as by pausing action against irregular migrants from new and emerging conflict zones.

Besides this data quality check, some measures have additional safeguarding features. For example, prior to issuing a driving licence revocation, a warning letter is sent out giving advance notice of the intention to revoke. The letters are effective at engaging individuals, with a high volume of correspondence received, and the letters can lead to new applications being made. Between 2022 and 2023, 3,500 warning letters were sent resulting in 1,209 written responses from migrants (some correspondence will have been received from the same individuals) and 323 individuals took action following the warning letter that led to the initial decision to revoke being changed. This included making a new application or appealing a decision. It should be noted that these new applications will include those which have gone on to be unsuccessful and returned to the enforcement population of interest.

Table 9: Home Office warning letters to revoke driving licences

Outcome	2022	2023
Warning letters issued	2,437	1,063
Correspondence received	807	402
Driving licence revocation decision changed (new application, appeal or had leave)	132	191

Source: Internal Home Office data

4.2.3 Routes to Redress

This enables individuals to contact the department where they consider that they have been impacted by the compliant environment measures in error (Home Office and UKVI, 2025b).

The Home Office and/or OGDs use any notification letters to signpost the option of Routes to Redress to those who are given a negative decision based on the data-sharing activities between the Home Office, OGDs and banks. The form to raise concerns is available on a dedicated website which includes a postal option. The safeguard has been in place since August 2021 prior to data sharing restarting.

This safeguard generated some correspondence with the Home Office, but there was a broad variety of queries that meant they were assigned to different teams in the Home Office to be reviewed. Some of the reasons included requests related to proof of immigration status, queries on biometric residence permits (BRPs), and queries related to digital status view and prove, including confirmation of status and issues around access checks.

Between 2021 and 2023, 1,894 cases were recorded, with only 86 of these cases being classified as related to the compliant environment measures and 6 out of 10 of these being upheld. 14 of these cases relate to Home Office data sharing, mainly to the revocation of driving licences, and 13 of those were upheld. The reasons for errors related to some individuals holding indefinite leave to remain. Cases may be based on stamps in migrants’ passports and not on Home Office databases. Some cases of dual nationality or individuals with right to British or Irish citizenship by birth may not be recorded or the Home Office may not hold the information.

In terms of bulk data sharing, it should be noted that the warning letters regarding driving licences are likely to address most concerns, while nudge letters and civil penalties are directed at the employer and may explain why this data sharing does not generate many cases.

4.2.4 Other safeguards

While those who believe they have been wrongly disqualified from operating a current account can contact Routes to Redress, they are also directed to contact the Home Office by phone or make a written complaint via a dedicated route. Anyone refused an account or subject to account closure is provided with information stating that the decision is a matter of immigration legislation and how they can contact the Home Office or take steps to regularise their status. In 2023, around 130 people contacted the helpline with 51 complaints being upheld. Fluctuations around status played an important role, with half of the cases related to either limited leave; outstanding applications or recent refusals. A few people had naturalised, were British by birth or had indefinite leave to remain.

In relation to illegal working and vulnerability, staff receive training and safeguarding embedded into operations via the IE National Safeguarding Engagement and Co-ordination Team. Officers on illegal working visits are briefed on vulnerability and safeguarding issues and report any suspected cases of modern slavery encountered on visits (Neal, 2024). This is primarily done via the National Referral Mechanism. In 2023, half of all referrals came from government agencies with 33% (2,757) from IE, compared to 40% in 2022. It should be noted that, of the 17,004 referrals received in 2023, a quarter related to British nationals. While labour exploitation was most common for adults, criminal exploitation was most common for those referred who were aged 17 and under (Home Office, 2024c).

4.2.5 Dealing with the Home Office

The safeguards indicate that specific enforcement activity such as bulk data sharing with OGDs appears to work well. The triple lock is likely to be key in improvement. A few cases have been flagged and resolutions have been prompt. Given bank account closures only restarted in April 2023, this does not yet include a comprehensive overview of any individuals raising issues related to banking especially as the process of matching, checking and notifying someone of a closure will be relatively time consuming.

It should be noted that the communication around initiatives such as Routes to Redress has mainly targeted those who have had their data shared, and both Routes to Redress and the SVM rely on individual migrants or Home Office officials to raise issues. The services are pragmatically primarily focusing on resolving individual cases rather than wider issues.

4.2.6 Data

Data created in older Home Office systems many years ago may still be relevant to decisions being made on individuals now. The quality of historic data remains a key challenge for enforcement teams, as evidenced in the small number of cases upheld. The move to a customer-centric system should improve data and remove issues with duplications, removing some pressure on data quality checks for enforcement teams.

Digitalisation is a key tool in improving and simplifying systems for users (migrants and third parties) and it also moves the focus more towards access checks as the key point of contact with the Home Office. Work has been ongoing in the department to ensure those without digital documents (migrants and UK citizens) are not left behind.

Question 6

5.  Final reflections

Accepted Answer

5.1 The effectiveness of implementing the compliant environment measures

The system through which access to work, benefits and services is managed requires the involvement of a range of actors, including government and non-government actors. Available data indicates that the system appears to be working well in terms of preventing access to those not eligible, as only a few non-compliant individuals are identified through data sharing with OGDs, DVLA and banks where individuals with no rights attempt to access them. Employers and landlords implementing the Right to Work and Right to Rent schemes are a more diverse population and while the majority have a good understanding of their obligations, there are some gaps in knowledge and awareness especially among smaller businesses and one-property landlords who may not have the resources to keep up to date with legal requirements. Further educational initiatives may be helpful. There will also be a minority who are deliberately non-compliant, which includes exploitative landlords and employers.

However, eligibility checks related to access to work, benefits and services do not operate in isolation and other eligibility criteria will contribute to the integrity of the system, such as financial situation for renters or professional skills for workers.

The deterrence of the measures is also hard to assess, and while it is reasonable to assume deterrence has an impact, the nature of the impact is likely to vary, and is hard to estimate. It is not possible either to assess the absence of checks, which in many cases have been in place for decades.

There are some gaps in compliance primarily driven by socioeconomic changes, such as increased labour market flexibility, as the civil penalty regime does not apply for businesses using self-employed workers. The increase of digital challenger banks in the financial markets is also a relevant change, as banking measures only apply to current accounts offered by authorised deposit-taking banks and building societies.

5.2 Effectiveness of enforcement of the compliant environment

The Home Office drives enforcement of the measures, intended to affect those in breach of immigration law. This requires more targeted activity, often driven by intelligence or data on migrants deemed irregular that the Home Office holds. This means that some groups are likely to be targeted more than others.

The majority of individuals deemed irregular and included in data sharing are young men from the Indian subcontinent and Nigeria. However, this fluctuates with wider migration patterns with an increasing number of Albanians also subject to sanctions via data sharing. All in all, this is broadly in line with migrant entry into the UK. Data sharing shows that the proportion of those subject to sanctions is similar to the nationality breakdown of those included in the overall data sharing, suggesting that sanctions are not disproportionally falling on certain groups but aligned to the information the Home Office holds on irregular migrants.

Illegal working visits need to be intelligence-led and hence instead reflect available information, including public allegations and other agency referrals. Illegal working risks are likely higher in sectors where there are a high number of low-paid jobs and where specific professional skills are not required. This is supported by survey data suggesting that businesses in sectors such as hospitality and construction are more likely than those in other sectors to agree that illegal working happens in their sector. While illegal working arrests will reflect the fact that some nationalities tend to work more in certain sectors, overall arrest rates show that nationalities arrested broadly align with those seen in other Home Office activity.

Gaps in this area include having the resources and the ability to identify non-compliant third parties, and workers who are less visible and/or operate in the hidden economy.

5.3 Understanding impacts

Work, benefit and service eligibility checks are integrated into everyday life and will impact individuals differently depending on their needs to access services. Proactive data sharing illustrates this with a varying number of individuals being sanctioned by each measure and only a small number being sanctioned across measures. It is therefore clear that the cumulative impact of measures varies significantly for different individuals.

The evidence shows that individuals react to sanctions differently depending on their specific circumstances. In particular, those irregular migrants who think they can take action to change their immigration status try to regularise - in some cases this will be successful while in other cases it may simply lead to a rejection and the person going back into the irregular population. However, an individual’s situation can be complex, and a variety of factors will play a part in someone’s decision to stay or leave the UK.

The Home Office has put in place specific initiatives such as Routes to Redress to help ensure that there are no unintended impacts on those lawfully in the UK. Routes to Redress ensures that individuals who think they have been impacted in error can contact the Home Office. Since the service was launched, only a few individuals have had a challenge upheld and cases have been dealt with promptly. Safeguards will continue to be monitored to learn lessons.

Further work is needed to better understand migrants’ motivations for irregular stay and factors that enable deliberate non-compliance. Key here will be to better understand the hidden population. This will entail exploring available evidence from within and outside the Home Office to understand irregular migrants better, with potential to explore bespoke external research. This also includes understanding better the most exploitative relationships in terms of employment or tenancies, and where non-compliance is deliberate and calculated.

The digitalisation of the immigration system is an important change. This includes eligibility checks also becoming digital. Digitalisation offers increased ease of access but may also introduce new challenges related to technology and remote access, as well as posing a different challenge to more vulnerable groups. This area cuts across teams in the Home Office and beyond. There are already mechanisms in place to deal with issues related to digital access. Any further work in this area will incorporate any existing learnings.

The Home Office will continue to assess the gaps and emerging trends highlighted in this report going forward.

Question 7

Appendix: Data sharing - reviewing outcomes

Accepted Answer

This report has attempted to use a person-centric approach where possible, so data-sharing outcomes and sanctions have been analysed at person level for each measure. This means that someone sanctioned more than once will only be counted once. However, officials have subsequently looked across all measures to identify individuals who have been sanctioned across measures.

Demographics of individuals were obtained from Home Office data systems and include date of birth, sex and nationality. Age statistics in this report relating to unique individuals use their age as at the first action, match or data share. Sex has been derived by title, where a title of Mr or Master meant a person was marked as male, and a title of Mrs, Miss, Ms or Sister meant they were marked as female.

Reviewing the data, it is possible to follow individuals over time and understand what actions they have taken since receiving the sanction, although it cannot be known whether these are due to the sanction. The following broad outcomes were used: a person has regularised their status, their case is under review (for example, appeals, outstanding asylum application), they are of interest to enforcement, or they have left the UK. This is based on broad outcomes rather than detailed information about each individual’s status.

It is important to note that immigration status is very fluid and can change over time. In this report, we have been exploring outcomes as a snapshot of migrants’ immigration statuses at several points in May for the years 2021 to 2023. This means that the status is only true at that point in time, hence the longitudinal aspect is required to understand when statuses change and to what extent.

The analysis is subject to data quality issues related to managing a live operational database. A live database may see a time lag in data entering the system or older data reviewed (such as dates of birth) and subsequently modified.

Question 8

References

Accepted Answer

DBT (2023a) ‘Business population estimates for the UK and regions 2023: statistical release’; Department for Business and Trade (viewed on 10 March 2025).

DBT (2023b) ‘Labour Market Enforcement Strategy 2023 to 2024’; Department for Business and Trade (viewed on 10 March 2025).

de Haas H (2021) ‘A theory of migration: the aspirations-capabilities framework’; Comparative Migration Studies: volume 9(8), page 27 (viewed on 11 March 2025).

MHCLG (2024) ‘English Private Landlord Survey 2021: main report’; Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (viewed on 10 March 2025).

DSIT and DCMS (2022) ‘Digital identity certification for right to work, right to rent and criminal record checks’; Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (viewed on 10 March 2025).

HMRC (2024) ‘UK payrolled employments by nationality, region, industry, age and sex, from July 2014 to December 2023’; HM Revenue and Customs (viewed on 10 March 2025).

HM Government (2025) ‘Proceeds of Crime Act 2002’ on Legislation.gov.uk; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2017) ‘Immigration Act 2014 code of practice: freezing orders (bank accounts measures)’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2020a) ‘Response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review: A Comprehensive Improvement Plan’; Report Number CP 293 (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2020b) Right to rent: landlords penalties; (viewed on 18 March 2025).

Home Office (2023a) ‘Developing an evaluation strategy for the compliant environment: Review of internal data and processes’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2023b) ‘Compliant environment: overarching equality impact assessment’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2023c) ‘Right to Rent scheme: Phase two evaluation’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2023d) ‘Update on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review Recommendations’. Statement UIN HCWS523; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2023e) ‘The Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023’. Economic Note Number: HOEN 0034; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2023f) ‘A review of external evidence of the compliant environment: Literature synthesis of external evidence and best use of international examples’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2023g) ‘Over 100 arrested in record breaking illegal working crackdown’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2023h) ‘Moped delivery drivers from major firms targeted for illegal working’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2024a) ‘Home Office data: Transaction Explorer Data Q4 2023’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2024b) ‘Additional statistics relating to illegal migration’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2024c) ‘Modern Slavery: National Referral Mechanism and Duty to Notify statistics UK, end of year summary 2023’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2025a) ‘Checking a job applicant’s right to work’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office (2025b) Immigration systems statistics data tables; Irregular migration to the UK detailed dataset, year ending December 2024.

Home Office (2025c) Employer awareness of Right to Work checks.

Home Office, IE and Jenrick R (2023) ‘Tripling of fines for those supporting illegal migrants’ (online). Home Office, Immigration Enforcement and The Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office and UKVI (2022) ‘Applying to come to the UK’ in New Plan for Immigration: legal migration and border control; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office and UKVI (2024) ‘Immigration Enforcement data: Q4 2023’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office and UKVI (2025a) ‘Landlord’s guide to right to rent checks: 12 February 2025’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Home Office and UKVI (2025b) ‘Ask the Home Office to check your immigration status is correct’; (viewed on 11 March 2025).

Office for National Statistics (2024) JOBS02: Workforce jobs by industry; (viewed on 12 December, 2023.

Neal D (2024) ‘An inspection of illegal working enforcement August to October 2023’. An independent report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration; (viewed on 11 March 2025).

UKVI (2023) ‘Increasing the maximum civil penalty amount for the right to work and right to rent schemes: equality impact assessment’; UK Visas and Immigration (viewed on 10 March 2025).

UKVI (2024) ‘Working or volunteering in the UK while an asylum case is considered’; UK Visas and Immigration (viewed on 10 March 2025).

UKVI (2025a) ‘View and prove your immigration status: get a share code’; UK Visas and Immigration (viewed on 10 March 2025).

UKVI (2025b) ‘Biometric residence permits’ (BRPs); UK Visas and Immigration; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

UKVI and IE (2024a) ‘Guidance for banks and building societies on carrying out immigration checks on current account holders: Immigration Act 2014’; UK Visas and Immigration, and Immigration Enforcement (viewed on 10 March 2025).

UKVI and IE (2024b) ‘Current account closed or refused based on immigration status’; (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Williams (2020) ‘Windrush Lessons Learned Review’; an independent review by Wendy Williams. Report Number HC 93 (viewed on 10 March 2025).

Cookies on GOV.UK

Executive summary

The compliant environment

Evaluation of the compliant environment

Understanding compliance

Third party checks: Right to Rent and Right to Work scheme

Home Office proactive data sharing

Enforcement

Civil penalties: Right to Work and Right to Rent

The banking measure

The driving measure

The health measure

Outcomes and impacts

Safeguards

1. Background and introduction

1.1 The compliant environment

1.2 Windrush Lessons Learned Review and beyond

1.2.1 Windrush lessons learned

1.2.2 Evidence as a core driver in policy making and operational effectiveness

1.3 Recent changes relevant to the compliant environment

1.3.1 Increase in civil penalties

Table 1: Changes to the civil penalty regime (working and renting)

1.4 Digital by default

1.5 Evaluation of the compliant environment

1.5.1 Overview

1.5.2 Building on the initial evaluation strategy

1.5.3 Report structure

2. Understanding compliance

2.1 Third-party checks: Right to Rent and Right to Work

2.1.1 Right to Rent scheme

2.1.2 Right to Work scheme

2.1.3 Understanding compliance

2.2 Home Office proactive data sharing

Table 2: Overview of individuals identified via data sharing Sept 2021 to December 2023

Table 3: Most common nationalities included in data sharing since 2021 (driving and work)

2.3 Digitalisation of the immigration system

Table 4: Employer and landlord digital checks (view and prove volumes)

2.4 Continued improvements to ensure compliance

3. Enforcement activity overview

3.1 Home Office enforcement activities related to Right to Work and Right to Rent schemes

Figure 1: Number of illegal working visits, 2019 to 2023

3.1.1 Geographical spread

3.1.2 Sectors and risks

Figure 2: Most visited sectors for illegal working in 2023

Figure 3: Most common nationalities arrested in illegal working visits

3.1.3 Data sharing with HMRC to identify potential illegal working

3.1.4 Right to rent visits

3.1.5 Civil penalties

Figure 4: Number of civil penalties issued between 2019 and 2023

3.2 The banking measure

Table 5: Overview of decisions post data matching in 2023 (April to December) bank data share

3.2.1 Response demographics

Figure 5: Age of individuals who had a Duty to Close notice issued (April to December 2023)

Table 6: Most common nationalities of individuals who had a Duty to Close notice issued (April to December 2023)

3.3 The driving measure

3.3.1 Driving licence revocations

3.3.2 Demographics of those impacted by revocations

Table 7: Most common nationalities impacted by driving licence revocations (%)

3.3.3 Overall outcomes on driving

3.4 The health measure and the Home Office role

3.4.1 NHS debtor demographics

Figure 6: Age of debtors, July-December 2023

Figure 7: Most common nationalities of debtors, July-December 2023

3.4.2 Varied impact on groups from enforcement activity

4. The impact of the measures

4.1 Irregular migrants impacted by Home Office actions- what are the outcomes?

Figure 8: Most common nationality impacted by measures: 2021 to 2023

Figure 9: Distribution of sex for each measure

4.1.1 Outcomes over time

Figure 10: Long-term outcomes of data share since 2014 to 2018

4.2 Safeguards

4.2.1 Safety valve mechanism (SVM)

Table 8: Number of referrals to SVM by year

4.2.2 Triple lock mechanism

Table 9: Home Office warning letters to revoke driving licences

4.2.3 Routes to Redress

4.2.4 Other safeguards

4.2.5 Dealing with the Home Office

4.2.6 Data

5. Final reflections